陕西省 ACCA考试成绩查询时间

正确答案：
(d) Dovedale Ltd and Hira Ltd can register as a group for the purposes of value added tax (VAT) because Dovedale Ltd controls
Hira Ltd and both companies are established in the UK in that their head offices are in the UK.
Dovedale Ltd will also control Atapo Inc. However, Atapo Inc cannot be part of a group registration unless it is established
in the UK or has a fixed establishment in the UK. It will be regarded as established in the UK if it is centrally managed and
controlled in the UK or if its head office is in the UK. A fixed establishment is a place where the company has staff and
equipment and where its business is carried on.

正确答案：

(b) (i) Appropriateness of audit opinion given
Tutorial note: The answer points suggested by the marking scheme are listed in roughly the order in which they might
be extracted from the information presented in the question. The suggested answer groups together some of these
points under headings to give the analysis of the situation a possible structure.
Heading
■ The opinion paragraph is not properly headed. It does not state the form. of the opinion that has been given nor
the grounds for qualification.
■ The opinion ‘the financial statements do not give a true and fair view’ is an ‘adverse’ opinion.
■ That ‘provision should be made’, but has not, is a matter of disagreement that should be clearly stated as noncompliance
with IAS 36. The title of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets should be given in full.
■ The opinion should be headed ‘Disagreement on Accounting Policies – Inappropriate Accounting Method – Adverse
Opinion’.
1 ISA 250 does not specify with whom agreement should be reached but presumably with those charged with corporate governance (e.g audit committee or
2 other supervisory board).
20
6D–INTBA
Paper 3.1INT
Content
■ It is appropriate that the opinion paragraph should refer to the note(s) in the financial statements where the matter
giving rise to the modification is more fully explained. However, this is not an excuse for the audit opinion being
‘light’ on detail. For example, the reason for impairment could be summarised in the auditor’s report.
■ The effects have not been quantified, but they should be quantifiable. The maximum possible loss would be the
carrying amount of the non-current assets identified as impaired.
■ It is not clear why the directors have been ‘unable to quantify the amounts’. Since impairments should be
quantifiable any ‘inability’ suggest a limitation in scope of the audit, in which case the opinion should be disclaimed
(or ‘except for’) on grounds of lack of evidence rather than disagreement.
■ The wording is confusing. ‘Failure to provide’ suggests disagreement. However, there must be sufficient evidence
to support any disagreement. Although the directors cannot quantify the amounts it seems the auditors must have
been able to (estimate at least) in order to form. an opinion that the amounts involved are sufficiently material to
warrant a qualification.
■ The first paragraph refers to ‘non-current assets’. The second paragraph specifies ‘tangible and intangible assets’.
There is no explanation why or how both tangible and intangible assets are impaired.
■ The first paragraph refers to ‘profit or loss’ and the second and third paragraphs to ‘loss’. It may be clearer if the
first paragraph were to refer to recognition in the income statement.
■ It is not clear why the failure to recognise impairment warrants an adverse opinion rather than ‘except for’. The
effects of non-compliance with IAS 36 are to overstate the carrying amount(s) of non-current assets (that can be
specified) and to understate the loss. The matter does not appear to be pervasive and so an adverse opinion looks
unsuitable as the financial statements as a whole are not incomplete or misleading. A loss is already being reported
so it is not that a reported profit would be turned into a loss (which is sometimes judged to be ‘pervasive’).
Prior year
■ As the 2005 auditor’s report, as previously issued, included an adverse opinion and the matter that gave rise to
the modification:
– is unresolved; and
– results in a modification of the 2006 auditor’s report,
the 2006 auditor’s report should also be modified regarding the corresponding figures (ISA 710 Comparatives).
■ The 2006 auditor’s report does not refer to the prior period modification nor highlight that the matter resulting in
the current period modification is not new. For example, the report could say ‘As previously reported and as more
fully explained in notes ….’ and state ‘increase the loss by $x (2005 – $y)’.

正确答案：

(b) Transactions that allow choice of settlement are accounted for as cash-settled to the extent that the entity has incurred a
liability (IFRS2 para 34). The share based transaction is treated as the issuance of a compound financial instrument. IFRS2
applies similar measurement principles to determine the value of the constituent parts of a compound instrument as that
required by IAS32 ‘Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation’. The purchase of the property, plant and equipment
(PPE) and the grant to the director, both fall under this section of IFRS2 as the supplier and the director have a choice of
settlement. The fair value of the goods can be measured directly as regards the purchase of the PPE and therefore this fact
determines that the transaction is treated in a certain way. In the case of the director, the fair value of the service rendered
will be determined by the fair value of the equity instruments given and IFRS2 says that this type of share based transaction
should be dealt with in a certain way. Under IFRS2, if the fair value of the goods or services received can be measured directly
and easily then the equity element is determined by taking the fair value of the goods or services less the fair value of the
debt element of this instrument. The debt element is essentially the cash payment that will occur. If the fair value of the goods
or services is measured by reference to the fair value of the equity instruments given then the whole of the compound
instrument should be fair valued. The equity element becomes the difference between the fair value of the equity instruments
granted less the fair value of the debt component. It should take into account the fact that the counterparty must forfeit its
right to receive cash in order to receive the equity instrument.
When Leigh received the property, plant and equipment it should have recorded a liability of $4 million and an increase in
equity of $0·55 million being the difference between the value of the property, plant and equipment and the fair value of theliability. The fair value of the liability is the cash payment of $3·50 x 1·3 million shares, i.e. $4·55 million.
The accounting entry would be:

正确答案：

(ii) [Donald’s address] [Firm’s address]
Dear Donald [Date]
I understand that you have incurred a tax loss in your first year of trading. The following options are available in respect
of this loss.
1. The first option is to use the trading loss against other forms of income in the same year. If such a claim is made,
losses are offset against income before personal allowances.
Any excess loss can still be offset against capital gains of the year. However, any offset against capital gains is
before both taper relief and annual exemptions.