江苏省2021年ACCA考试报名时间

■ A change in the estimated useful life should be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance
with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. For example, if the development
costs have little, if any, useful life after the introduction of the alternative drug (‘worst case’ scenario), the carrying
value ($3 million) should be written off over the current and remaining years, i.e. $1 million p.a. The increase in
amortisation/decrease in carrying value ($800,000) is material to PBT (6%) and total assets (1·5%).
■ Similarly a change in the expected pattern of consumption of the future economic benefits should be accounted for
as a change in accounting estimate (IAS 8). For example, it may be that the useful life is still to 2020 but that
the economic benefits may reduce significantly in two years time.
■ After adjusting the carrying amount to take account of the change in accounting estimate(s) management should
have tested it for impairment and any impairment loss recognised in profit or loss.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ $3 million carrying amount of development costs brought forward agreed to prior year working papers and financial
statements.
■ A copy of the press release announcing the competitor’s alternative drug.
■ Management’s projections of future cashflows from Tournose-related sales as evidence of the useful life of the
development costs and pattern of consumption.
■ Reperformance of management’s impairment test on the development costs: Recalculation of management’s
calculation of the carrying amount after revising estimates of useful life and/or consumption of benefits compared
with management’s calculation of value in use.
■ Sensitivity analysis on management’s key assumptions (e.g. estimates of useful life, discount rate).
■ Written management representation on the key assumptions concerning the future that have a significant risk of
causing material adjustment to the carrying amount of the development costs. (These assumptions should be
disclosed in accordance with IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements.)

(a) The accounting for the transaction as an asset acquisition does not comply with the requirements of IFRS 3 Business Combinations and should have been accounted as a business combination. This would mean that transaction costs would be expensed, the vessels recognised at fair value, any deferred tax recognised at nominal value and the difference between these amounts and the consideration paid to be recognised as goodwill.

In accordance with IFRS 3, an entity should determine whether a transaction is a business combination by applying the definition of a business in IFRS 3. A business is an integrated set of activities and assets which is capable of being conducted and managed for the purpose of providing a return in the form. of dividends, lower costs or other economic benefits directly to investors or other owners, members or participants. A business consists of inputs and processes applied to those inputs which have the ability to create outputs. Although businesses usually have outputs, outputs are not required to qualify as a business.

When analysing the transaction, the following elements are relevant:

(i) Inputs: Shares in vessel owning companies, charter arrangements, outsourcing arrangements with a management company, and relationships with a shipping broker.

(ii) Processes: Activities regarding chartering and operating the vessels, financing the business, purchase and sales of vessels.

(iii) Outputs: Ceemone would generate revenue from charter agreements and has the ability to gain economic benefit from the vessels.

IFRS 3 states that whether a seller operated a set of assets and activities as a business or intends to operate it as a business is not relevant in evaluating whether it is a business. It is not relevant therefore that some activities were outsourced as Ceemone could chose to conduct and manage the integrated set of assets and activities as a business. As a result, the acquisition included all the elements which constitute a business, in accordance with IFRS 3.

IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements sets out the situation where an investor controls an investee. This is the case, if and only if, the investor has all of the following elements:

(i) power over the investee, that is, the investor has existing rights which give it the ability to direct the relevant activities (the activities which significantly affect the investee’s returns);

(ii) exposure, or rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee;

(iii) the ability to use its power over the investee to affect the amount of the investor’s returns.

Where a party has all three elements, then it is a parent; where at least one element is missing, then it is not. In every case, IFRS 10 looks to the substance of the arrangement and not just to its legal form. Each situation needs to be assessed individually. The question arises in this case as to whether the entities created are subsidiaries of the bank. The bank is likely to have power over the investee, may be exposed to variable returns and certainly may have the power to affect the amount of the returns. Thus the bank is likely to have a measure of control but the extent will depend on the constitution of the entity.

(b) Kayte’s calculation of the residual value of the vessels with a 10-year useful life is unacceptable under IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment because estimating residual value based on acquisition cost does not comply with the requirements of IAS 16. Kayte should prepare a new model to determine residual value which would take account of broker valuations at the end of each reporting period and which would produce zero depreciation charge when estimated residual value was higher than the carrying amount.

IAS 16 paragraph 6 defines residual value as the estimated amount which an entity would currently obtain from disposal of the asset, after deducting the estimated costs of disposal, if the asset were already at the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life.

IAS 16 requires the residual value to be reviewed at least at the end of each financial year end with the depreciable amount of an asset allocated on a systematic basis over its useful life. IAS 16 specifies that the depreciable amount of an asset is determined after deducting its residual value.

Kayte’s original model implied that the residual value was constant for the vessel’s entire useful life. The residual value has to be adjusted especially when an expected sale approaches, and the residual value has to come closer to disposal proceeds minus disposal costs at the end of the useful life. IAS 16 says that in cases when the residual value is greater than the asset’s carrying amount, the depreciation charge is zero unless and until its residual value subsequently decreases to an amount below the asset’s carrying amount. The residual value should be the value at the reporting date as if the vessel were already of the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life. An increase in the expected residual value of an asset because of past events will affect the depreciable amount, while expectation of future changes in residual value other than the effects of expected wear and tear will not. There is no guidance in IAS 16 on how to estimate residual value when the useful life is considered to be shorter than the economic life. Undesirable volatility is not a convincing argument to support the accounting treatment, and broker valuations could be a useful starting point to estimate residual value.

As regards the vessels which are kept for the whole of their economic life, a residual value based upon the scrap value of steel is acceptable. Therefore the vessels should be depreciated based upon the cost less the scrap value of steel over the 30-year period. The engine need not be componentised as it will have the same 30-year life if maintained every 10 years. It is likely that the cost of major planned maintenance will increase over the life of a vessel due to inflation and the age of the vessel. This additional cost will be capitalised when incurred and therefore the depreciation charge on these components may be greater in the later stages of a vessel’s life.

When major planned maintenance work is to be undertaken, the cost should be capitalised. The engine overhaul will be capitalised as a new asset which will then be depreciated over the 10-year period to the next overhaul. The depreciation of the original capitalised amount will typically be calculated such that it had a net book value of nil when the overhaul is undertaken.

This is not the case with one vessel, because work was required earlier than expected. In this case, any remaining net book value of the old engine and overhaul cost should be expensed immediately.

The initial carve out of components should include all major maintenance events which are likely to occur over the economic life of the vessel. Sometimes, it may subsequently be found that the initial allocation was insufficiently detailed, in that not all components were identified. This is the case with the funnels. In this situation it is necessary to determine what the net book value of the component would currently be had it been initially identified. This will sometimes require the initial cost to be determined by reference to the replacement cost and the associated accumulated depreciation charge determined using the rate used for the vessel. This is likely to leave a significant net book value in the component being replaced, which will need to be written off at the time the replacement is capitalised.

(c) Report on the proposed adjustment of gearing through the repurchase of ordinary shares
The effect of capital structure on the value of a company is not fully understood.
Increasing the proportion of debt in the capital structure may reduce the overall cost of capital due to the interest on debt being a tax allowable expense. Even if a company is in a non-tax paying position, mixing additional low cost debt with relatively expensive equity might reduce the weighted average cost of capital. In such circumstances the proposed strategy to increase gearing would have some validity. However, increasing gearing can also bring problems. Risk to investors, and therefore the required returns on equity and debt, will increase as gearing increases. Very high levels of gearing might lead to
direct and indirect bankruptcy costs, with a detrimental effect on cash flow and corporate value. Any benefits from increasing the proportion of debt in the capital structure will be to some extent offset as a result of increased risk with high gearing.
The revised estimates of the effect on the cost of capital and value of Semer are not likely to be accurate. Reasons for this include:
(i) The company will not be able to repurchase the necessary shares at their current market value. Approximately ￡240 million value of equity would need to be repurchased, or more than one third of the existing market value of equity.
As repurchases take place it is likely that the share price will significantly increase.
(ii) The cost of debt is unlikely to remain constant. As more debt is issued lenders will demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the extra risk resulting from higher gearing levels. The cost of equity will also increase with higher gearing. These effects will increase the weighted average cost of capital to a higher level than that estimated.
(iii) The precise market values of debt and equity after the repurchase are unknown, and again will reflect the market attitude
to the new risk of the higher gearing.
The value of the company is likely to be much lower than that estimated, as the weighted average cost of capital is likely to be underestimated.