老考生重新报考ACCA考试，要怎么注册？

正确答案：
(ii) There is objective evidence of impairment because of the financial difficulties and reorganisation of Bromwich. The
impairment loss on the loan will be calculated by discounting the estimated future cash flows. The future cash flows
will be $100,000 on 30 November 2007. This will be discounted at an effective interest rate of 8% to give a present
value of $85,733. The loan will, therefore, be impaired by ($200,000 – $85,733) i.e. $114,267.
(Note: IAS 39 requires accrual of interest on impaired loans at the original effective interest rate. In the year to
30 November 2006 interest of 8% of $85,733 i.e. $6,859 would be accrued.)

正确答案：
(b) Advice on payments
■ As compared with (a) there is no obvious tax issue. Xalam is not overstating expenditure for tax purposes.
■ The payments being made for security consultancy services amount to a bribe. Corruption and bribery (and extortion)
are designated categories of money laundering offence under ‘The Forty Recommendations’ of the Financial Action Task
Force on Money Laundering (FATF).
■ Xalam clearly benefits from the payments as it receives income from the contract with the major customer. This is
criminal property and possession of it is a money laundering offence.
■ Dedza should consider the seriousness of the disclosure made by the chief executive in the context of domestic law.
■ Dedza should consider its knowledge of import duties etc in the destination country before recommending a course of
action to Xalam.
■ Dedza may be guilty of a money laundering offence if the matter is not reported. If a report to the FIU is considered
necessary then Dedza should encourage Xalam to make voluntary disclosure. If Xalam does not, Dedza will not be in
breach of client confidentiality for reporting knowledge of a suspicious transaction.
Tutorial note: Making a report takes precedence over client confidentiality.

正确答案：
(iii) Warranty provision
■ Agree the principal assumptions in management’s estimate of liabilities under warranties to the terms of warranty
as set out in contracts for sale of vehicle. For example:
– the period for which warranties are given;
– whether for parts replacement only or parts and labour;
– exclusion clauses, perhaps for vehicles sold into a particular market, or used in a specified industry (e.g. filmmaking).
■ Agree the reasonableness of management’s assumptions in the calculation of the provision. For example, the
proportion of vehicles for which claims are made within three months, three to six months, six to nine months, etc.
■ Substantiate the economic reality of the basis of management’s calculations. For example:
– agree the number of vehicles sold each month to a summary sales report;
– agree the calculation of average cost of a repair under warranty to job records;
– test costs of repair on a sample basis (e.g. parts replaced to price lists and labour charges to hours worked
(per job records) and charge-out rates).
■ Consider the reasonableness of management’s estimate by comparing:
– the actual cost of after-date repairs (say for three months) against the appropriate proportion of the provision
made;
– current year provision per vehicle sold against prior provision per vehicle sold.
■ Assess management’s ability to make reliable estimates in this area by comparing last year’s provision with the
actual repairs under warranty costs incurred during the year in respect of sales made in previous years.
Tutorial note: The basis of management’s estimate may tend to overstate or understate the provision required
and should be revised accordingly.
■ Agree the extent to which the provision takes account of (has been reduced by) any recourse to suppliers (e.g. in
respect of faulty parts). For example:
– by reviewing terms of purchases from major suppliers;
– by examining records of replacement parts received free of charge.