2019年3月广西ACCA考试成绩查询时间为4月15日

正确答案：
(ii) Former administrative building
The land and buildings of the former administrative centre are accounted for as separate elements. The demolition of the
building is an indicator of the impairment of the property under IAS36. The building will not generate any future cash flows
and its recoverable amount is zero. Therefore, the carrying value of the building will be written down to zero and the loss
charged to profit or loss in the year to 31 May 2006 when the decision to demolish the building was made. The land value
will be in excess of its carrying amount as the company uses the cost model and land prices are rising. Thus no impairment
charge is recognised in respect of the land.
The demolition costs will be expensed when incurred and a provision for environmental costs recognised when an obligation
arises, i.e. in the financial year to 31 May 2007. It may be that some of these costs could be recognised as site preparation
costs and be capitalised under IAS16.
The land will not meet the criteria set out in IFRS5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’ as a noncurrent
asset which is held for sale. IFRS5 says that a non-current asset should be classified as ‘held for sale’ if its carrying
amount will be recovered principally through a sale transaction rather than through continuing use. However, the non-current
asset must be available for immediate sale and must be actively marketed at its current fair value (amongst other criteria) and
these criteria have not been met in this case.
When the building has been demolished and the site prepared, the land could be considered to be an investment property
and accounted for under IAS40 ‘Investment Property’ where the fair value model allows gains (or losses) to be recognised inprofit or loss for the period.

正确答案：
(ii) Stakeholder claims
Four external stakeholders in the case and their claims are as follows.
The client, i.e. the government of the East Asian country. This stakeholder wants the project completed to budget and
on time. It may also be concerned to minimise negative publicity in respect of the construction of the dam and the
possible negative environmental consequences.
Stop-the-dam, the vocal and well organised pressure group. This stakeholder wants the project stopped completely,
seemingly and slightly paradoxically, for environmental and social footprint reasons.
First Nation, the indigenous people group currently resident on the land behind the dam that would be flooded after its
construction. This stakeholder also wants the project stopped so they can continue to live on and farm the land.
The banks (identified as a single group). These seem happy to lend to the project and will want it to proceed so they
make a return on their loans commensurate with the risk of the loan. They do not want to be publicly identified as being
associated with the Giant Dam Project.
Shareholders. The shareholders have the right to have their investment in the company managed in such a way as to
maximise the value of their shareholding. The shareholders seek projects providing positive NPVs within the normal
constraints of sound risk management.
Tutorial note: only four stakeholders need to be identified. Marks will be given for up to four relevant stakeholders
only.

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(c) The Shirtmaster Group has decided to structure itself using two divisions who are dealing with very different markets,
customers and buying behaviours. In so doing the intention is to provide more value to the customer through a better
understanding of their needs. The existence of the two divisions also reflects the origins of the two family businesses.
Mintzberg in his work on organisation design and structure sees divisional configurations as being appropriate in relatively
simple and static environments where significant strategic power is delegated from the ‘strategic apex’ to the ‘middle line‘
general managers with responsibility for the performance of the division. Indeed one of the benefits cited for divisionalised
companies is their ability to provide a good training ground in strategic decision making for general managers who can then
progress to senior positions at company headquarters. Tony Masters’s reluctance to delegate real strategic decision making
power to the senior managers in the Shirtmaster division may be preventing those managers developing key managerial skills.
Using the Boston Box model one could classify the Shirtmaster division as a ‘dog’ with low market share in a market exhibiting
change but little growth. The Corporate Clothing division, by contrast, can be regarded as a ‘problem child’ having a small
share but of a growing market. Porter’s ‘better-off test’ needs to be met – are the two divisions better off being in the same
Group? As it stands there seems little synergy between the two divisions – there seems to be little evidence of the two divisions
sharing resources or transferring skills or learning between the two divisions. Their two value chains and systems are both
separate and different though on the face of it there are many activities that are similar. Operating independently may
encourage healthy competition between the two divisions and consequently better performance through better motivated staff.
Specialised competences such as Corporate Clothing division’s on-line response to customer orders and design changes are
more easily developed within a divisionalised structure. Performance can be clearly identified and controlled and resources
channelled to those areas showing potential. However, this may be at the expense of costly duplication of resources and an
inability to get the necessary scale to compete in either of their separate markets. Certainly, the lack of co-operation betweenthe divisions in areas such as information systems may lead to higher costs and poorer performance.