香港考生注意：2020年ACCA国际会计师考试报名时间！

正确答案：
(b) Inventory, Goods sold and Investment property
The inventory and trade payable initially would be recorded at 8 million euros ÷ 1·6, i.e. $5 million. At the year end, the
amount payable is still outstanding and is retranslated at 1 dollar = 1·3 euros, i.e. $6·2 million. An exchange loss of
$(6·2 – 5) million, i.e. $1·2 million would be reported in profit or loss. The inventory would be recorded at $5 million at the
year end unless it is impaired in value.
The sale of goods would be recorded at 4 million euros ÷ 1·6, i.e. $2·5 million as a sale and as a trade receivable. Payment
is received on 31 October 2006 in euros and the actual value of euros received will be 4 million euros ÷ 1·3,
i.e. $3·1 million.
Thus a gain on exchange of $0·6 million will be reported in profit or loss.
The investment property should be recognised on 1 November 2005 at 28 million euros ÷ 1·4, i.e. $20 million. At
31 October 2006, the property should be recognised at 24 million euros ÷ 1·3, i.e. $18·5 million. The decrease in fair value
should be recognised in profit and loss as a loss on investment property. The property is a non-monetary asset and any foreign
currency element is not recognised separately. When a gain or loss on a non-monetary item is recognised in profit or loss,
any exchange component of that gain or loss is also recognised in profit or loss. If any gain or loss is recognised in equity ona non-monetary asset, any exchange gain is also recognised in equity.

正确答案：
(b) Illustration of use of analytical procedures as audit evidence
Tutorial note: Note that ‘as audit evidence’ requires consideration of substantive analytical procedures rather that the
identification of risks (relevant to part (a)).
Revenue
Analytical procedures may be used in testing revenue for completeness of recording (‘understatement’). The average selling
price of a vehicle in 2005 was $68,830 ($526·0 million ÷ 7,642 vehicles). Applying this to the number of vehicles sold
in 2006, might be projected to generate $698·8 million ($68,830 × 10,153) revenue from the sale of vehicles. The draft
financial statements therefore show a potential shortfall of $110·8 million ($(698·8 – 588·0) million) that is, 15·6%.
This should be investigated and substantiated through more detailed analytical procedures. For example, the number of
vehicles sold should be analysed into models and multiplied by the list price of each for a more accurate estimate of potential
revenue. The impact of discounts and other incentives (e.g. 0% finance) on the list prices should then be allowed for. If
recorded revenue for 2006 (as per draft income statement adjusted for cutoff and consignment inventories) is materially lower
than that calculated, detailed substantive procedures may be required in order to show that there is no material error.
‘Proof in total’/reasonableness tests
The material correctness, or otherwise, of income statement items (in particular) may be assessed through appropriate ‘proof
in total’ calculations (or ‘reasonableness’ tests). For example:
■ Employee benefits costs: the average number of employees by category (waged/salaried/apprenticed) × the average pay
rate for each might prove that in total $91·0 million (as adjusted to actual at 31 December 2006) is not materially
misstated. The average number of employees needs to be checked substantively (e.g. recalculated based on the number
of employees on each payroll) and the average pay rates (e.g. to rates agreed with employee representatives).
Tutorial note: An alternative reasonableness might be to take last year’s actual adjusted for 2006 numbers of
employees grossed-up for any pay increases during the year (pro-rated as necessary).
■ Depreciation: the cost (or net book value) of each category of asset × by the relevant straight-line (or reducing balance)
depreciation rate. If a ‘ballpark’ calculation for the year is materially different to the annual charge a more detailed
calculation can be made using monthly depreciation calculations. The cost (or net book value) on which depreciation
is calculated should be substantively tested, for example by agreeing brought forward balances to prior year working
papers and additions to purchase invoices (costings in respect of assets under construction).
Tutorial note: Alternatively, last year’s depreciation charge may be reconciled to this year’s by considering depreciation
rates applied to brought forward balances with adjustments for additions/disposals.
■ Interest income: an average interest rate for the year can be applied to the monthly balance invested (e.g. in deposit
accounts) and compared with the amount recognised for the year to 31 December 2006 (as adjusted for any accrued
interest per the bank letter for audit purposes). The monthly balances (or averages) on which the calculation is
performed should be substantiated to bank deposit statements.
■ Interest expense: if the cash balances do not go into overdraft then this may be similar expenses (e.g. prompt payment
discounts to customers). If this is to particular dealers then a proof in total might be to apply the discount rate to the
amounts invoiced to the dealer during the period.
Immaterial items
For immaterial items analytical procedures alone may provide sufficient audit evidence that amounts in the financial
statements are not materially misstated so that detailed substantive procedures are not required. For example, a comparison
of administration and distribution, maintenance and insurance costs for 2006 compared with 2005 may be sufficient to show
that material error is highly unlikely. If necessary, further reasonableness tests could be performed. For example, considering
insurance costs to value of assets insured or maintenance costs to costs of assets maintained.
Ratio analysis
Ratio analysis can provide substantive evidence that income statement and balance sheet items are not materially misstated
by considering their inter-relationships. For example:
■ Asset turnover: Based on the draft financial statements property, plant and equipment has turned over 5·2 times
($645·5/124·5) compared with 5·9 times in 2005. This again highlights that income may be overstated, or assets
overstated (e.g. if depreciation is understated).
■ Inventory turnover: Using cost of materials adjusted for changes in inventories this has remained stable at 10·9 times.
Tutorial note: This is to be expected as in (a) the cost in the income statement has increased by 9% and the value of
inventories by 8·5%.
Inventories represent the smallest asset value on the balance sheet at 31 December 2006 (7·8% of total assets).
Therefore substantive procedures may be limited to agreeing physical count of material items (vehicles) and agreeing
cutoff.
■ Average collection period: This has increased to 41 days (73·1/645·5 × 365) from 30 days. Further substantive analysis
is required, for example, separating out non-current amounts (for sales on 0% finance terms). Substantive procedures
may be limited to confirmation of amounts due from dealers (and/or receipt of after-date cash) and agreeing cutoff of
goods on consignment.
■ Payment periods: This has remained constant at 37 days (2005 – 38 days). Detailed substantive procedures may be
restricted to reconciling only major suppliers’ statements and agreeing the cutoff on parts purchased from them.

正确答案：
(b) The tax implications of the proposed restructuring of the Rapier Ltd group
(i) Immediate implications
Corporation tax
Rapier Ltd and its subsidiaries are in a capital gains group as Rapier Ltd owns at least 75% of the ordinary share capital
of each of the subsidiary companies. Any non-exempt items of plant and machinery owned by the subsidiaries will
therefore be transferred to Rapier Ltd at no gain, no loss.
No taxable credit or allowable debit will arise on the transfer of the subsidiaries’ goodwill to Rapier Ltd because the
companies are in a capital gains group.
The trading losses brought forward in Dirk Ltd will be transferred with the trade to Rapier Ltd as the effective ownership
of the three trades will not change (Rapier Ltd owns the subsidiaries which own the trades and, following the
restructuring, will own the three trades directly). The losses will be restricted to being offset against the future trading
profits of the Dirk trade only.
There will be no balancing adjustments in respect of the plant and machinery transferred to Rapier Ltd. Writing down
allowances will be claimed by the subsidiaries in respect of the year ending 30 June 2007 and by Rapier Ltd in respect
of future periods.
Value added tax (VAT)
No VAT should be charged on the sales of the businesses to Rapier Ltd as they are outside the scope of VAT. This is
because the trades are to be transferred as going concerns to a VAT registered person with no significant break in trading.
Switch Ltd must notify HM Revenue and Customs by 30 July 2007 that it has ceased to make taxable supplies.