广东省考生：ACCA国际注册会计师的缴费流程是怎么样的呢？

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).

正确答案：
(ii) The implications of selling the Oxford house and garden in two separate disposals
The additional sales proceeds would result in an increase in Clifford’s capital gains and consequently his tax liability.
When computing the gain on the sale of the house together with a small part of the garden, the allowable cost would
be a proportion of the original cost. That proportion would be A/A + B where A is the value of the house and garden
that has been sold and B is the value of the part of the garden that has been retained. Principal private residence relief
and taper relief would be available in the same way as that set out in (i) above.
When computing the gain on the sale of the remainder of the garden, the cost would be the original cost of the property
less the amount used in computing the gain on the earlier disposal. Principal private residence relief would not be
available as the land sold is not a dwelling house or part of one.

正确答案：
(b) Need to analyse the group structure
A certain amount of analysis of the group structure will be undertaken before an auditor accepts the role of group auditor,
particularly if the auditor is not directly responsible for the whole group.
An analysis of the group structure is necessary to:
■ ensure that particular attention is given to the more unusual aspects of corporate structures (e.g. partnership
arrangements that may be a joint venture, components in tax havens, shell companies and horizontal groups);
■ arrange access to information relating to all ‘significant’ components (i.e. those representing 20% or more of group
assets, liabilities, cash flows, profit or revenue), on a timely basis;
■ identify the applicable financial reporting framework for each component and any local statutory reporting requirements;
■ plan work to deal with different accounting frameworks/policies applied throughout the group and differences between
International Auditing Standards (ISAs) and national standards;
■ integrate the group audit process effectively with local statutory audit requirements;
■ identify related parties and effectively audit the completeness of disclosures in the group accounts in accordance with
IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures.
Any doubts about the group structure will need to be clarified against publicly available information as soon as possible to
ensure an effective audit of the relevant components (i.e. subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures). The auditor can then
plan the level of assurance required on each component well in advance of the year end.
Having established thoroughly the group structure from the outset the auditor will then need only to update the structure for
changes year-on-year.