2019年9月ACCA考试成绩查询时间10月14日

正确答案：

正确答案：
(b) Sale of industrial equipment
(i) Matters
■ The industrial equipment was in use for nine years (from April 1996) and would have had a carrying value of
$660,000 at 31 March 2005 (11/20 × $1·2m – assuming nil residual value and a full year’s depreciation charge
in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal). Disposal proceeds were therefore only $360,000.
■ The $0·3m loss represents 15% of PBT (for the year to 31 March 2006) and is therefore material. The equipment
was material to the balance sheet at 31 March 2005 representing 2·6% of total assets ($0·66/$25·7 × 100).
■ Separate disclosure, of a material loss on disposal, on the face of the income statement is in accordance with
IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. However, in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’,
it should not be captioned in any way that might suggest that it is not part of normal operating activities (i.e. not
‘extraordinary’, ‘exceptional’, etc).
Tutorial note: However, note that if there is a prior period error to be accounted for (see later), there would be
no impact on the current period income statement requiring consideration of any disclosure.
■ The reason for the sale. For example, whether the equipment was:
– surplus to operating requirements (i.e. not being replaced); or
– being replaced with newer equipment (thereby contributing to the $8·1m increase (33·8 – 25·7) in total
assets).
■ The reason for the loss on sale. For example, whether:
– the sale was at an under-value (e.g. to a related party);
– the equipment had a bad maintenance history (or was otherwise impaired);
– the useful life of the equipment is less than 20 years;
– there is any deferred consideration not yet recorded;
– any non-cash disposal proceeds have been overlooked (e.g. if another asset was acquired in a part-exchange).
■ If the useful life was less than 20 years, tangible non-current assets may be materially overstated in respect of other
items of equipment that are still in use and being depreciated on the same basis.
■ If the sale was to a related party then additional disclosure should be required in a note to the financial statements
for the year to 31 March 2006 (IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures’).
Tutorial note: Since there are no specific pointers to a related party transaction (RPT), this point is not expanded
on.
■ Whether the sale was identified in the prior year audit’s post balance sheet event review. If so:
– the disclosure made in the prior year’s financial statements (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’);
– whether an impairment loss was recognised at 31 March 2005.
■ If not, and the equipment was impaired at 31 March 2005, a prior period error should be accounted for (IAS 8
‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’). An impairment loss of $0·3m would have
been material to prior year profit (12·5%).
Tutorial note: Unless this was a RPT or the impairment arose after 31 March 2005 a prior period adjustment
should be made.
■ Failure to account for a prior period error (if any) would result in modification of the audit opinion ‘except for’ noncompliance
with IAS 8 (in the current year) and IAS 36 (in the prior period).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying amount ($0·66m as above) agreed to the non-current asset register balances at 31 March 2005 and
recalculation of the loss on disposal.
■ Cost and accumulated depreciation removed from the asset register in the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Receipt of proceeds per cash book agreed to bank statement.
■ Sales invoice transferring title to Deakin.
■ A review of maintenance expenses and records (e.g. to confirm reason for loss on sale).
■ Post balance sheet event review on prior year audit working papers file.
■ Management representation confirming that Deakin is not a related party (provided that there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise).

正确答案：
(d) One of the most widely used models to identify excellence is that of Peters and Waterman developed in their research into
excellent American companies. Interestingly, they agreed with Leavitt in that the companies identified as excellent, whether
they were manufacturers or service businesses, could be seen as offering an excellent service to their customers. This required
them to understand what their customers really valued and then put in place the resources, competences and decision making
processes that delivered the desired attributes. Excellence was positively associated with innovation. Using their checklist of
excellent attributes, Universal could see to be excellent in the following ways:
A bias for action – there is evidence to suggest that both Matthew and Simon are action orientated. They showed an admirable
willingness to experiment and develop a service that added significant value to the customer experience.
Hands-on, value driven – again, the commitment to deliver a quality service – one that they are totally familiar with and able
to deliver themselves – suggests that this value is communicated and shared with staff. The use of self employed installers
and sales people make this commitment particularly important.
Close to the customer – all the evidence points to a real and deep understanding of customer needs. The opportunity for the
business stems from the poor customer service provided by their small competitors. Systems are designed to achieve the ‘no
surprises’ service, which leads to significant levels of customer recommendation and advocacy.
Autonomy and entrepreneurship – there is evidence of a strong belief that individuals and teams should be encouraged to
compete with one another, but not in ways that compromise the quality of the service delivered.
Simple form. – lean staff – Universal is a small functionally managed firm. There is no evidence of creating a large
headquarters, since managers are closely involved with the day-to-day management of their function.
Productivity through people – people are key to the service provided and there is recognition that teams are crucial to the
firm’s growth and success.
Simultaneous loose-tight properties – more difficult to identify in a small company, but there is clearly commitment to shared
values and giving people the freedom to achieve results within this value framework.
These measures of excellence again show the importance of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ factors in achieving outstanding performance.
An alternative interpretation is to see these attributes as critical success factors, which if achieved, are clearly linked to key
performance indicators. Universal’s growth shows the link between strategy and the qualities needed to achieve this growth.
The ubiquitous balanced scorecard could also be used to measure four key criteria of company performance and
benchmarking the company against the major installers could also provide evidence of excellence. The recent gaining of a
government award for Universal’s contribution to inner city job creation is also a useful indicator of all round excellence.