在云南省，ACCA考试通过了你不这样做你还是不能拿到证书

正确答案：
(c) From the information given in the scenario, DPP will face significant problems if it chooses to develop a greenfield site. The
bureaucratic planning procedures adopted by the host government can add considerable time to get an efficient plant up and
running. In some ways, such governments are in a dilemma, anxious to secure foreign direct investment, but at the same
time protect inefficient domestic manufacturers. Certainly, DPP in its own risk assessment would need to take political risk
into account. In assessing the risks of a greenfield site, Ken could use Porter’s ‘diamond’ to good effect. Factor conditions
might be seen as quite favourable, with an educated, trained, albeit low productivity, labour force. However, the lack of
demanding tough global customers, a weak and inefficient domestic industry to supply the new venture and competitors who
have been highly protected mean that DPP will have to battle to create a supportive and sustaining environment. Financial
exposure may be increased through currency risk.
Clearly, the fresh start will allow integrated information systems to be developed and the latest technology to be used.
However, the new capacity will have a significant impact on DPP’s existing plants. The extent to which expatriate
management is used is clearly an issue. The host government is likely to require some commitment to the training of local
management and the degree of autonomy given to the new plant may well be an issue. Cultural issues and sensitivities will
be significant – often shop floor workers and managers will be used to high levels of absenteeism being tolerated in
government owned and controlled firms. Also the issue of involvement and participation could be an issue – there may be a
marked reluctance on the shop floor to contribute ideas towards raising productivity and quality. DPP is part of a group that
has experience of operating abroad and there is a real need to access information on key problems in greenfield operations.
In many ways the move to a greenfield site links the macro environmental analysis generated by a SLEPT or PEST to five
forces industry analysis with its focus on customers, competitors and suppliers. Certainly, creating an integrated value chain
with DPP’s existing business will be a real challenge to the management. It also adds capacity to a European industry where
there is already a problem. Choosing between the two options to achieve the strategic goal of a lower cost base can be doneusing the tests of suitability, acceptability and feasibility. The decision will not be an easy one.

正确答案：
5 FOX & STEEPLE – THREE AUDIT ASSIGNMENTS
(i) Threats to independence
Self-interest
Tutorial note: This threat arises when a firm or a member of the audit team could benefit from a financial interest in, or
other self-interest conflict with, an assurance client.
■ A self-interest threat could potentially arise in respect of any (or all) of these assignments as, regardless of any fee
restrictions (e.g. per IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’), the auditor is remunerated by clients for
services provided.
■ This threat is likely to be greater for Huggins Co (larger/listed) and Gray Co (requires other services) than for Blythe Co
(audit a statutory necessity).
■ The self-interest threat may be greatest for Huggins Co. As a company listed on a recognised stock exchange it may
give prestige and credibility to Fox & Steeple (though this may be reciprocated). Fox & Steeple could be pressurised into
taking evasive action to avoid the loss of a listed client (e.g. concurring with an inappropriate accounting treatment).
Self-review
Tutorial note: This arises when, for example, any product or judgment of a previous engagement needs to be re-evaluated
in reaching conclusions on the audit engagement.
■ This threat is also likely to be greater for Huggins and Gray where Fox & Steeple is providing other (non-audit) services.
■ A self-review threat may be created by Fox & Steeple providing Huggins with a ‘thorough examination’ of its computerised
systems if it involves an extension of the procedures required to conduct an audit in accordance with International
Standards on Auditing (ISAs).
■ Appropriate safeguards must be put in place if Fox & Steeple assists Huggins in the performance of internal audit
activities. In particular, Fox & Steeple’s personnel must not act (or appear to act) in a capacity equivalent to a member
of Huggins’ management (e.g. reporting, in a management role, to those charged with governance).
■ Fox & Steeple may provide Gray with accounting and bookkeeping services, as Gray is not a listed entity, provided that
any self-review threat created is reduced to an acceptable level. In particular, in giving technical advice on financial
reporting, Fox & Steeple must take care not to make managerial decisions such as determining or changing journal
entries without obtaining Gray’s approval.
■ Taxation services comprise a broad range of services, including compliance, planning, provision of formal taxation
opinions and assistance in the resolution of tax disputes. Such assignments are generally not seen to create threats to
independence.
Tutorial note: It is assumed that the provision of tax services is permitted in the jurisdiction (i.e. that Fox and Steeple
are not providing such services if prohibited).
■ The due diligence reviews for Gray may create a self-review threat (e.g. on the fair valuation of net assets acquired).
However, safeguards may be available to reduce these threats to an acceptable level.
■ If staff involved in providing other services are also assigned to the audit, their work should be reviewed by more senior
staff not involved in the provision of the other services (to the extent that the other service is relevant to the audit).
■ The reporting lines of any staff involved in the audit of Huggins and the provision of other services for Huggins should
be different. (Similarly for Gray.)
Familiarity
Tutorial note: This arises when, by virtue of a close relationship with an audit client (or its management or employees) an
audit firm (or a member of the audit team) becomes too sympathetic to the client’s interests.
■ Long association of a senior member of an audit team with an audit client may create a familiarity threat. This threat
is likely to be greatest for Huggins, a long-standing client. It may also be significant for Gray as Fox & Steeple have had
dealings with this client for seven years now.
■ As Blythe is a new audit client this particular threat does not appear to be relevant.
■ Senior personnel should be rotated off the Huggins and Gray audit teams. If this is not possible (for either client), an
additional professional accountant who was not a member of the audit team should be required to independently review
the work done by the senior personnel.
■ The familiarity threat of using the same lead engagement partner on an audit over a prolonged period is particularly
relevant to Huggins, which is now a listed entity. IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’ requires that the
lead engagement partner should be rotated after a pre-defined period, normally no more than seven years. Although it
might be time for the lead engagement partner of Huggins to be changed, the current lead engagement partner may
continue to serve for the 2006 audit.
Tutorial note: Two additional years are permitted when an existing client becomes listed, since it may not be in the
client’s best interests to have an immediate rotation of engagement partner.
Intimidation
Tutorial note: This arises when a member of the audit team may be deterred from acting objectively and exercising
professional skepticism by threat (actual or perceived), from the audit client.
■ This threat is most likely to come from Blythe as auditors are threatened with a tendering process to keep fees down.
■ Peter may have already applied pressure to reduce inappropriately the extent of audit work performed in order to reduce
fees, by stipulating that there should not be an interim audit.
■ The audit senior allocated to Blythe will need to be experienced in standing up to client management personnel such as
Peter.
Tutorial note: ‘Correct’ classification under ‘ethical’, ‘other professional’, ‘practical’ or ‘staff implications’ is not as important
as identifying the matters.
(ii) Other professional and practical matters
Tutorial note: ‘Other professional’ includes quality control.
■ The experience of staff allocated to each assignment should be commensurate with the assessment of associated risk.
For example, there may be a risk that insufficient audit evidence is obtained within the budget for the audit of Blythe.
Huggins, as a listed client, carries a high reputational risk.
■ Sufficient appropriate staff should be allocated to each audit to ensure adequate quality control (in particular in the
direction, supervision, review of each assignment). It may be appropriate for a second partner to be assigned to carry
out a ‘hot review’ (before the auditor’s report is signed) of:
– Blythe, because it is the first audit of a new client; and
– Huggins, as it is listed.
■ Existing clients (Huggins and Gray) may already have some expectation regarding who should be assigned to their
audits. There is no reason why there should not be some continuity of staff providing appropriate safeguards are put in
place (e.g. to overcome any familiarity threat).
■ Senior staff assigned to Blythe should be alerted to the need to exercise a high degree of professional skepticism (in the
light of Peter’s attitude towards the audit).
■ New staff assigned to Huggins and Gray would perhaps be less likely to assume unquestioned honesty than staff
previously involved with these audits.
Logistics (practical)
■ All three assignments have the same financial year end, therefore there will be an element of ‘competition’ for the staff
to be assigned to the year-end visits and final audit assignments. As a listed company, Huggins is likely to have the
tightest reporting deadline and so have a ‘priority’ for staff.
■ Blythe is a local and private company. Staff involved in the year-end visit (e.g. to attend the physical inventory count)
should also be involved in the final audit. As this is a new client, staff assigned to this audit should get involved at every
stage to increase their knowledge and understanding of the business.
■ Huggins is a national operation and may require numerous staff to attend year-end procedures. It would not be expected
that all staff assigned to year-end visits should all be involved in the final audit.
Time/fee/staff budgets
■ Time budgets will need to be prepared for each assignment to determine manpower requirements (and to schedule audit
work).
(iii) Implications for allocating staff
■ Fox & Steeple should allocate staff so that those providing other services to Huggins and Gray (that may create a selfreview
threat) do not participate in the audit engagement.
Competence and due care (Qualifications/Specialisation)
■ All audit assignments will require competent staff.
■ Huggins will require staff with an in-depth knowledge of their computerised system.
■ Gray will require senior audit staff to be experienced in financial reporting matters specific to communications and
software solutions (e.g. in revenue recognition issues and accounting for internally-generated intangible assets).
■ Specialists providing tax services and undertaking the due diligence reviews for Gray may not be required to have any
involvement in the audit assignment.

正确答案：
(d) UK tax implications of shares in Bubble Inc
Income tax
Gloria is UK resident and is therefore subject to income tax on her worldwide income. However, because she is non-UK
domiciled, she will only be taxed on the foreign dividends she brings into the UK.
Dividends brought into the UK will be grossed up for any tax paid in Oceania. The gross amount is taxed at 10% if it falls
into the starting or basic rate band and at 321/2% if it falls into the higher rate band. The tax suffered in Oceania is available
for offset against the UK tax liability. The offset is restricted to a maximum of the UK tax on the dividend income.
Capital gains tax
Individuals are subject to capital gains tax on worldwide assets if they are resident or ordinarily resident in the UK. However,
because Gloria is non-UK domiciled and the shares are situated abroad, the gain is only taxable to the extent that the sales
proceeds are brought into the UK. Any tax suffered in Oceania in respect of the gain is available for offset against the UK
capital gains tax liability arising on the shares.
Any loss arising on the disposal of the shares would not be available for relief in the UK.
In computing a capital gain or allowable loss, a deduction is available for the incidental costs of acquisition. However, to be
allowable, such costs must be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of acquiring the asset. The fee paid to Eric
related to general investment advice and not to the acquisition of the shares and therefore, would not be deductible in
computing the gain.
Taper relief will be at non-business asset rates as Bubble Inc is an investment company.
Inheritance tax
Assets situated abroad owned by non-UK domiciled individuals are excluded property for the purposes of inheritance tax.
However, Gloria will be deemed to be UK domiciled (for the purposes of inheritance tax only) if she has been resident in the
UK for 17 out of the 20 tax years ending with the year in which the disposal occurs.
Gloria has been running a business in the UK since June 1992 and would therefore, appear to have been resident for at least
15 tax years (1992/93 to 2006/07 inclusive).
If Gloria is deemed to be UK domiciled such that the shares in Bubble Inc are not excluded property, business property relief
will not be available because Bubble Inc is an investment company.

正确答案：