ACCA考试形式是机考吗？机考注意事项有哪些？

正确答案：
(c) Site restoration
(i) Matters
■ The provision for site restoration represents nearly 2·5% of total assets and is therefore material if it is not
warranted.
■ The estimated cost of restoring the site is a cost directly attributable to the initial measurement of the tangible fixed
asset to the extent that it is recognised as a provision under IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’ (IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’).
■ A provision should not be recognised for site restoration unless it meets the definition of a liability, i.e:
– a present obligation;
– arising from past events;
– the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits.
■ The provision is overstated by nearly $0·34m since Volcan is not obliged to relocate the trees and de facto has
only an obligation of $60,000 as at 31 March 2005 (being the penalty for having felled them). When considered
in isolation, this overstatement is immaterial (representing only 0·2% of total assets and 3·6% of PBT).
■ It seems that even if there are local government regulations calling for site restoration there is no obligation unless
the penalties for non-compliance are prohibitive (unlike the fines for the trees).
■ It is unlikely that commencement of site development has given rise to a constructive obligation, since past actions
(disregarding the preservation of the trees) must dispel any expectation that Volcan will honour any pledge to
restore the valley.
■ Whether commencing development of the site, and destroying the trees, conflicts with any statement of socioenvironmental
responsibility in the annual report.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A copy of the planning application and permission granted setting out the penalties for non-compliance.
■ Payment of $60,000 to local government in May 2005 agreed to the bank statement.
■ The present value calculation of the future cash expenditure making up the $4·0m provision.
Tutorial note: Evidence supporting the calculation of $0·4m is irrelevant as there is no liability to be provided for.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (as
for (a)).
■ Asset inspection at the site as at 31 March 2005.
■ Any contracts entered into which might confirm or dispute management’s intentions to restore the site. For
example, whether plant hire (bulldozers, etc) covers only the period over which the warehouse will be constructed
– or whether it extends to the period in which the valley would be ‘made good’.

正确答案：
(c) Alasdair is not employed, nor is he a director, of Glaikit Limited. As he holds 25% of the shares in Glaikit Limited, he is a
participator in a close company and therefore the special close company provisions will apply. Thus Alsadair will be taxed
under the ‘loans to participator’ rules.
When the loan is written off, the amount waived will be treated as a gross distribution of ￡16,667 (￡15,000 x 10/9). This
will be assessed in the tax year in which the loan is written off (expected to be 2006/07 or 2007/08). To the extent that this
additional income makes Alasdair a higher rate taxpayer in that year, he will have to pay additional income tax of 32·5% of
the gross amount, less the available 10% tax credit.
From the company’s perspective, Glaikit Limited will have to pay 25% of the net value of any loan made to Alasdair which
has not been repaid to the company (or written off) within nine months of the year end. As the loan will remain outstanding
as at 31 March 2006, Glaikit Limited will have to pay ￡3,750 (25% x ￡15,000) to the Revenue by 1 January 2007. This
amount will not be repaid until the loan is repaid or written off. This usually takes place nine months after the year end in
which the loan is written off, so Glaikit Limited should ensure that any write-off occurs prior to 31 March 2007, or else the
repayment may be delayed for up to one year.
As the loan is tax free, the Revenue may also seek to tax Alasdair under the beneficial loan rules. If the Revenue were to seek
an assessment in this manner, the value of the benefit would be calculated and taxed as a deemed distribution. However, as
Alasdair has no connection with the company other than as an investor, it is unlikely that the beneficial loan benefit will lead
to such a deemed distribution.

正确答案：
(b) Implications for the auditor’s report
(i) Management Report
■ $4·5 million represents 3·75% of total assets, 1·7% of revenue and 48·9% profit before tax. As this is material
by any criteria (exceeding all of 2% of total assets, 1/2% revenue and 5% PBT), the specific disclosure requirements
of IASs need to be met (IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’).
■ The Management Report discloses the amount and the reason for a material change in equity whereas the financial
statements do not show the reason for the change and suggest that it is immaterial. As the increase in equity
attributable to this adjustment is nearly half as much as that attributable to PBT there is a material inconsistency
between the Management Report and the audited financial statements.
■ Amendment to the Management Report is not required.
Tutorial note: Marks will be awarded for arguing, alternatively, that the Management Report disclosure needs to
be amended to clarify that the revaluation arises from the first time implementation.
■ Amendment to the financial statements is required because the disclosure is:
– incorrect – as, on first adoption of IAS 40, the fair value adjustment should be against the opening balance
of retained earnings; and
– inadequate – because it is being ‘supplemented’ by additional disclosure in a document which is not within
the scope of the audit of financial statements.
■ Whilst it is true that the adoption of IAS 40 did not have a significant impact on results of operations, Hegas’s
financial position has increased by nearly 4% in respect of the revaluation (to fair value) of just one asset category
(investment properties). As this is significant, the statement in the notes should be redrafted.
■ If the financial statements are not amended, the auditor’s report should be qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of
disagreement (non-compliance with IAS 40) as the matter is material but not pervasive. Additional disclosure
should also be given (e.g. that the ‘other difference’ is a fair value adjustment).
■ However, it is likely that when faced with the prospect of a qualified auditor’s report Hegas’s management will
rectify the financial statements so that an unmodified auditor’s report can be issued.
Tutorial note: Marks will be awarded for other relevant points e.g. citing IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in
Accounting Estimates and Errors’.
(ii) Chairman’s statement
Tutorial note: Hegas is privately-owned therefore IAS 14 ‘Segment Reporting’ does not apply and the proportion of
revenue attributable to hydro-electricity will not be required to be disclosed in the financial statements. However, credit
will be awarded for discussing the implications for the auditor’s report if it is regarded as a material inconsistency on
the assumption that segment revenue (or similar) is reported in the financial statements.
■ The assertion in the chairman’s statement, which does not fall within the scope of the audit of the financial
statements, claims two things, namely that the company:
(1) is ‘one of the world’s largest generators of hydro-electricity’; and
(2) has ‘a dedicated commitment to accountable ethical professionalism’.
■ To the extent that this information does not relate to matters disclosed in the financial statements it may give rise
to a material misstatement of fact. In particular, the first statement presents a misleading impression of the
company’s size. In misleading a user of the financial statements with this statement, the second statement is not
true (as it is not ethical or professional to mislead the reader and potentially undermine the credibility of the
financial statements).
■ The first statement is a material misstatement of fact because, for example:
– the company is privately-owned, and publicly-owned international/multi-nationals are larger;
– the company’s main activity is civil engineering not electricity generation (only 14% of revenue is derived from
HEP);
– as the company ranks at best eighth against African companies alone it ranks much lower globally.
■ Hegas should be asked to reconsider the wording of the chairman’s statement (i.e. removing these assertions) and
consult, as necessary, the company’s legal advisor.
■ If the statement is not changed there will be no grounds for qualification of the opinion on the audited financial
statements. The audit firm should therefore take legal advice on how the matter should be reported.
■ However, an emphasis of matter paragraph may be used to report on matters other than those affecting the audited
financial statements. For example, to explain the misstatement of fact if management refuses to make the
amendment.
Tutorial note: Marks will also be awarded for relevant comments about the chairman’s statement being perceived by
many readers to be subject to audit and therefore that the unfounded statement might undermine the credibility of the
financial statements. Shareholders tend to rely on the chairman’s statement, even though it is not regulated or audited,
because modern financial statements are so complex.

正确答案：

Gow’s net assets
IAS36 ‘Impairment of Assets’, sets out the events that might indicate that an asset is impaired. These circumstances include
external events such as the decline in the market value of an asset and internal events such as a reduction in the cash flows
to be generated from an asset or cash generating unit. The loss of the only customer of a cash generating unit (power station)
would be an indication of the possible impairment of the cash generating unit. Therefore, the power station will have to be
impairment tested.
The recoverable amount will have to be determined and compared to the value given to the asset on the setting up of the
joint venture. The recoverable amount is the higher of the cash generating unit’s fair value less costs to sell, and its value-inuse.
The fair value less costs to sell will be $15 million which is the offer for the purchase of the power station ($16 million)
less the costs to sell ($1 million). The value-in-use is the discounted value of the future cash flows expected to arise from the
cash generating unit. The future dismantling costs should be provided for as it has been agreed with the government that it
will be dismantled. The cost should be included in the future cash flows for the purpose of calculating value-in-use and
provided for in the financial statements and the cost added to the property, plant and equipment ($4 million ($5m/1·064)).
The value-in-use based on a discount rate of 6 per cent is $21 million (working). Therefore, the recoverable amount is
$21 million which is higher than the carrying value of the cash generating unit ($20 million) and, therefore, the value of the
cash generating unit is not impaired when compared to the present carrying value of $20 million (value before impairment
test).
Additionally IAS39, ‘Financial Instruments: recognition and measurement’, says that an entity must assess at each balance
sheet date whether a financial asset is impaired. In this case the receivable of $7 million is likely to be impaired as Race is
going into administration. The present value of the estimated future cash flows will be calculated. Normally cash receipts from
trade receivables will not be discounted but because the amounts are not likely to be received for a year then the anticipated
cash payment is 80% of ($5 million × 1/1·06), i.e. $3·8 million. Thus a provision for the impairment of the trade receivables
of $3·2 million should be made. The intangible asset of $3 million would be valueless as the contract has been terminated.
Glass’s Net Assets
The leased property continues to be accounted for as property, plant and equipment and the carrying amount will not be
adjusted. However, the remaining useful life of the property will be revised to reflect the shorter term. Thus the property will
be depreciated at $2 million per annum over the next two years. The change to the depreciation period is applied prospectively
not retrospectively. The lease liability must be assessed under IAS39 in order to determine whether it constitutes a
de-recognition of a financial liability. As the change is a modification of the lease and not an extinguishment, the lease liability
would not be derecognised. The lease liability will be adjusted for the one off payment of $1 million and re-measured to the
present value of the revised future cash flows. That is $0·6 million/1·07 + $0·6 million/(1·07 × 1·07) i.e. $1·1 million. The
adjustment to the lease liability would normally be recognised in profit or loss but in this case it will affect the net capital
contributed by Glass.
The termination cost of the contract cannot be treated as an intangible asset. It is similar to redundancy costs paid to terminate
a contract of employment. It represents compensation for the loss of future income for the agency. Therefore it must be
removed from the balance sheet of York. The recognition criteria for an intangible asset require that there should be probable
future economic benefits flowing to York and the cost can be measured reliably. The latter criterion is met but the first criterion
is not. The cost of gaining future customers is not linked to this compensation.
IAS18 ‘Revenue’ contains a concept of a ‘multiple element’ arrangement. This is a contract which contains two or more
elements which are in substance separate and are separately identifiable. In other words, the two elements can operate
independently from each other. In this case, the contract with the overseas company has two distinct elements. There is a
contract not to supply gas to any other customer in the country and there is a contract to sell gas at fair value to the overseas
company. The contract has not been fulfilled as yet and therefore the payment of $1·5 million should not be taken to profit
or loss in its entirety at the first opportunity. The non supply of gas to customers in that country occurs over the four year
period of the contract and therefore the payment should be recognised over that period. Therefore the amount should be
shown as deferred income and not as a deduction from intangible assets. The revenue on the sale of gas will be recognised
as normal according to IAS18.
There may be an issue over the value of the net assets being contributed. The net assets contributed by Glass amount to
$21·9 million whereas those contributed by Gow only total $13·8 million after taking into account any adjustments required
by IFRS. The joint venturers have equal shareholding in York but no formal written agreements, thus problems may arise ifGlass feels that the contributions to the joint venture are unequal.