2021年北京ACCA考试准考证打印时间：考前两周

正确答案：
(b) Effect of acquisition on planning the audit of Murray’s consolidated financial statements for the year ending 31 March
2008
Group structure
The new group structure must be ascertained to identify all entities that should be consolidated into the Murray group’s
financial statements for the year ending 31 March 2008.
Materiality assessment
Preliminary materiality for the group will be much higher, in monetary terms, than in the prior year. For example, if a % of
total assets is a determinant of the preliminary materiality, it may be increased by 10% (as the fair value of assets acquired,
including goodwill, is $2,373,000 compared with $21·5m in Murray’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended
31 March 2007).
The materiality of each subsidiary should be re-assessed, in terms of the enlarged group as at the planning stage. For
example, any subsidiary that was just material for the year ended 31 March 2007 may no longer be material to the group.
This assessment will identify, for example:
– those entities requiring an audit visit; and
– those entities for which substantive analytical procedures may suffice.
As Di Rollo’s assets are material to the group Ross should plan to inspect the South American operations. The visit may
include a meeting with Di Rollo’s previous auditors to discuss any problems that might affect the balances at acquisition and
a review of the prior year audit working papers, with their permission.
Di Rollo was acquired two months into the financial year therefore its post-acquisition results should be expected to be
material to the consolidated income statement.
Goodwill acquired
The assets and liabilities of Di Rollo at 31 March 2008 will be combined on a line-by-line basis into the consolidated financial
statements of Murray and goodwill arising on acquisition recognised.
Audit work on the fair value of the Di Rollo brand name at acquisition, $600,000, may include a review of a brand valuation
specialist’s working papers and an assessment of the reasonableness of assumptions made.
Significant items of plant are likely to have been independently valued prior to the acquisition. It may be appropriate to plan
to place reliance on the work of expert valuers. The fair value adjustment on plant and equipment is very high (441% of
carrying amount at the date of acquisition). This may suggest that Di Rollo’s depreciation policies are over-prudent (e.g. if
accelerated depreciation allowed for tax purposes is accounted for under local GAAP).
As the amount of goodwill is very material (approximately 50% of the cash consideration) it may be overstated if Murray has
failed to recognise any assets acquired in the purchase of Di Rollo in accordance with IFRS 3 Business Combinations. For
example, Murray may have acquired intangible assets such as customer lists or franchises that should be recognised
separately from goodwill and amortised (rather than tested for impairment).
Subsequent impairment
The audit plan should draw attention to the need to consider whether the Di Rollo brand name and goodwill arising have
suffered impairment as a result of the allegations against Di Rollo’s former chief executive.
Liabilities
Proceedings in the legal claim made by Di Rollo’s former chief executive will need to be reviewed. If the case is not resolved
at 31 March 2008, a contingent liability may require disclosure in the consolidated financial statements, depending on the
materiality of amounts involved. Legal opinion on the likelihood of Di Rollo successfully defending the claim may be sought.
Provision should be made for any actual liabilities, such as legal fees.
Group (related party) transactions and balances
A list of all the companies in the group (including any associates) should be included in group audit instructions to ensure
that intra-group transactions and balances (and any unrealised profits and losses on transactions with associates) are
identified for elimination on consolidation. Any transfer pricing policies (e.g. for clothes manufactured by Di Rollo for Murray
and sales of Di Rollo’s accessories to Murray’s retail stores) must be ascertained and any provisions for unrealised profit
eliminated on consolidation.
It should be confirmed at the planning stage that inter-company transactions are identified as such in the accounting systems
of all companies and that inter-company balances are regularly reconciled. (Problems are likely to arise if new inter-company
balances are not identified/reconciled. In particular, exchange differences are to be expected.)
Other auditors
If Ross plans to use the work of other auditors in South America (rather than send its own staff to undertake the audit of Di
Rollo), group instructions will need to be sent containing:
– proforma statements;
– a list of group and associated companies;
– a statement of group accounting policies (see below);
– the timetable for the preparation of the group accounts (see below);
– a request for copies of management letters;
– an audit work summary questionnaire or checklist;
– contact details (of senior members of Ross’s audit team).
Accounting policies
Di Rollo may have material accounting policies which do not comply with the rest of the Murray group. As auditor to Di Rollo,
Ross will be able to recalculate the effect of any non-compliance with a group accounting policy (that Murray’s management
would be adjusting on consolidation).
Timetable
The timetable for the preparation of Murray’s consolidated financial statements should be agreed with management as soon
as possible. Key dates should be planned for:
– agreement of inter-company balances and transactions;
– submission of proforma statements;
– completion of the consolidation package;
– tax review of group accounts;
– completion of audit fieldwork by other auditors;
– subsequent events review;
– final clearance on accounts of subsidiaries;
– Ross’s final clearance of consolidated financial statements.
Tutorial note: The order of dates is illustrative rather than prescriptive.

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(c) It has become increasingly common for audit firms to include a disclaimer paragraph within the audit report. However, it is
not a requirement of auditing standards and individual audit firms need to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the
use of a disclaimer paragraph.
The wording is used to state the fact that the auditor’s report is intended solely for the use of the company’s members as a
body, and that no responsibility is accepted or assumed to anyone other than the company and the company’s members as
a body.
The main perceived advantage is that the disclaimer should help to reduce the exposure of the audit firm to liability claims
from anyone other than the company or the company’s body of shareholders. The disclaimer makes it clear that the audit
firm reports only to those who appointed the firm, i.e. the members of the company, and this may make it more difficult for
the audit firm to be sued by a third party.
It is also argued that the use of a disclaimer could help to bridge the ‘expectation gap’ by providing a clearer indication of the
responsibility of the auditor.
In this way the audit firm can manage its risk exposure in an increasingly litigious environment. Recent high profile legal cases
against audit firms, such as the Bannerman case in Scotland, illustrate that an audit firm’s duty of care can extend beyond
the company and its shareholders, and that audit firms should consider how to protect themselves against liability claims.
Tutorial note: It is appropriate here to quote recent cases such as the Bannerman case to illustrate the reason why audit
firms face increased potential exposure to claims from third parties. However, knowledge of specific legal cases is not
required to gain full marks for this requirement.
However, it can be argued that a disclaimer does not necessarily work to protect an audit firm. Each legal case has individual
circumstances, and while a disclaimer might protect the audit firm in one situation, equally it may not offer any protection
where the facts of the case are different.
In addition, it is often argued that if an audit firm conducts an audit using full due care and diligence, there is no need for a
disclaimer, as a high quality audit would be very unlikely to lead to any claims against the audit firm. Consequently, it could
be argued that the use of disclaimers as a means to limit liability could permit low quality audits to be performed, the auditors
being confident that legal cases against them are restricted due to the presence of a disclaimer within the audit report.