ACCA机考每个月都可以考吗？

正确答案：
(c) (i) Protection products
Henry is still working and has a mortgage to support. He therefore needs to protect not only his assets but also cover
any debt, or the ability to repay. The following protection policies are relevant to Henry’s situation.
Life assurance
This is a form. of insurance that pays out on a chargeable event, usually death. The main types are:
– Term Assurance which provides cover for a fixed term with the sum assured payable only on death. No investment
benefits or payments arise on survival.
– Whole of Life Assurance where the policy provides life protection. The sum assured is payable on death at any time
and usually some form. of investment benefit will accrue in the form. of a surrender value.
A qualifying policy will give a tax-free lump sum that could, for example, be used to repay the mortgage.
Permanent health insurance
Permanent health insurance policies are designed to provide the policyholder with a benefit if s/he is unable to work
through sickness or if s/he needs medical expenses or long-term care.
This would provide Henry with an income in the event of illness – again useful given his mortgage, and would avoid
the need to liquidate other assets to pay the mortgage or ongoing costs.
Critical illness insurance
These policies provide a capital sum where a critical illness (from a large range listed in the policy) is diagnosed.
For the same reasons above, Henry should consider this in conjunction with permanent health insurance.
Note: Marks will also be given for other relevant protection products, e.g. specific mortgage protection insurance linked
to an event other than death.

正确答案：
(ii) Value added tax (VAT)
Goods exported are zero-rated. Razor Ltd must retain appropriate documentary evidence that the export has taken place.
Razor Ltd must account for VAT on the value of the goods purchased from Cutlass Inc at the time the goods are brought
into the UK. The VAT payable should be included as deductible input tax on the company’s VAT return.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Matters to consider
Materiality
The receivable represents only 0·2% (25,000/12 million x 100) of total assets so is immaterial in monetary terms.
However, the details of the transaction could make it material by nature.
The amount is outstanding from a company under the control of Pulp Co’s chairman. Readers of the financial statements
would be interested to know the details of this transaction, which currently is not disclosed. Elements of the transaction
could be subject to bias, specifically the repayment terms, which appear to be beyond normal commercial credit terms.
Paul Sheffield may have used his influence over the two companies to ‘engineer’ the transaction. Disclosure is necessary
due to the nature of the transaction, the monetary value is irrelevant.
A further matter to consider is whether this is a one-off transaction, or indicative of further transactions between the two
companies.
Relevant accounting standard
The definitions in IAS 24 must be carefully considered to establish whether this actually constitutes a related party
transaction. The standard specifically states that two entities are not necessarily related parties just because they have
a director or other member of key management in common. The audit senior states that Jarvis Co is controlled by Peter
Sheffield, who is also the chairman of Pulp Co. It seems that Peter Sheffield is in a position of control/significant influence
over the two companies (though this would have to be clarified through further audit procedures), and thus the two
companies are likely to be perceived as related.
IAS 24 requires full disclosure of the following in respect of related party transactions:
– the nature of the related party relationship,
– the amount of the transaction,
– the amount of any balances outstanding including terms and conditions, details of security offered, and the nature
of consideration to be provided in settlement,
– any allowances for receivables and associated expense.
There is currently a breach of IAS 24 as no disclosure has been made in the notes to the financial statements. If not
amended, the audit opinion on the financial statements should be qualified with an ‘except for’ disagreement. In
addition, if practicable, the auditor’s report should include the information that would have been included in the financial
statements had the requirements of IAS 24 been adhered to.
Valuation and classification of the receivable
A receivable should only be recognised if it will give rise to future economic benefit, i.e. a future cash inflow. It appears
that the receivable is long outstanding – if the amount is unlikely to be recovered then it should be written off as a bad
debt and the associated expense recognised. It is possible that assets and profits are overstated.
Although a representation has been received indicating that the amount will be paid to Pulp Co, the auditor should be
sceptical of this claim given that the same representation was given last year, and the amount was not subsequently
recovered. The $25,000 could be recoverable in the long term, in which case the receivable should be reclassified as
a non-current asset. The amount advanced to Jarvis Co could effectively be an investment rather than a short term
receivable. Correct classification on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) is crucial for the financial
statements to properly show the liquidity position of the company at the year end.
Tutorial note: Digressions into management imposing a limitation in scope by withholding evidence are irrelevant in this
case, as the scenario states that the only evidence that the auditors have asked for is a management representation.
There is no indication in the scenario that the auditors have asked for, and been refused any evidence.