考生注意!ACCA考试科目你都清楚吗?

正确答案：D

正确答案：
(b) Property is sometimes sold with a degree of continuing involvement by the seller so that the risks and rewards of ownership
have not been transferred. The nature and extent of the buyer’s involvement will determine how the transaction is accounted
for. The substance of the transaction is determined by looking at the transaction as a whole and IAS18 ‘Revenue’ requires
this by stating that where two or more transactions are linked, they should be treated as a single transaction in order to
understand the commercial effect (IAS18 paragraph 13). In the case of the sale of the hotel, theme park and casino, Norman
should not recognise a sale as the company continues to enjoy substantially all of the risks and rewards of the businesses,
and still operates and manages them. Additionally the residual interest in the business reverts back to Norman. Also Norman
has guaranteed the income level for the purchaser as the minimum payment to Conquest will be $15 million a year. The
transaction is in substance a financing arrangement and the proceeds should be treated as a loan and the payment of profits
as interest.
The principles of IAS18 and IFRIC13 ‘Customer Loyalty Programmes’ require that revenue in respect of each separate
component of a transaction is measured at its fair value. Where vouchers are issued as part of a sales transaction and are
redeemable against future purchases, revenue should be reported at the amount of the consideration received/receivable less
the voucher’s fair value. In substance, the customer is purchasing both goods or services and a voucher. The fair value of the
voucher is determined by reference to the value to the holder and not the cost to the issuer. Factors to be taken into account
when estimating the fair value, would be the discount the customer obtains, the percentage of vouchers that would be
redeemed, and the time value of money. As only one in five vouchers are redeemed, then effectively the hotel has sold goods
worth ($300 + $4) million, i.e. $304 million for a consideration of $300 million. Thus allocating the discount between the
two elements would mean that (300 ÷ 304 x $300m) i.e. $296·1 million will be allocated to the room sales and the balance
of $3·9 million to the vouchers. The deferred portion of the proceeds is only recognised when the obligations are fulfilled.
The recognition of government grants is covered by IAS20 ‘Accounting for government grants and disclosure of government
assistance’. The accruals concept is used by the standard to match the grant received with the related costs. The relationship
between the grant and the related expenditure is the key to establishing the accounting treatment. Grants should not be
recognised until there is reasonable assurance that the company can comply with the conditions relating to their receipt and
the grant will be received. Provision should be made if it appears that the grant may have to be repaid.
There may be difficulties of matching costs and revenues when the terms of the grant do not specify precisely the expense
towards which the grant contributes. In this case the grant appears to relate to both the building of hotels and the creation of
employment. However, if the grant was related to revenue expenditure, then the terms would have been related to payroll or
a fixed amount per job created. Hence it would appear that the grant is capital based and should be matched against the
depreciation of the hotels by using a deferred income approach or deducting the grant from the carrying value of the asset
(IAS20). Additionally the grant is only to be repaid if the cost of the hotel is less than $500 million which itself would seem
to indicate that the grant is capital based. If the company feels that the cost will not reach $500 million, a provision should
be made for the estimated liability if the grant has been recognised.

正确答案：

(a) Deferred taxation

A deferred tax asset should be recognised for deductible temporary differences, unused tax losses and unused tax credits to the extent that it is probable that taxable profi t will be available against which the deductible temporary differences can be utilised. The recognition of deferred tax assets on losses carried forward does not seem to be in accordance with IAS 12 Income Taxes. Cate is not able to provide convincing evidence that suffi cient taxable profi ts will be generated against which the unused tax losses can be offset. According to IAS 12 the existence of unused tax losses is strong evidence that future taxable profi t may not be available against which to offset the losses. Therefore when an entity has a history of recent losses, the entity recognises deferred tax assets arising from unused tax losses only to the extent that the entity has suffi cient taxable temporary differences or there is convincing other evidence that suffi cient taxable profi t will be available. As Cate has a history of recent losses and as it does not have suffi cient taxable temporary differences, Cate needs to provide convincing other evidence that suffi cient taxable profi t would be available against which the unused tax losses could be offset. The unused tax losses in question did not result from identifi able causes, which were unlikely to recur (IAS 12) as the losses are due to ordinary business activities. Additionally there are no tax planning opportunities available to Cate that would create taxable profi t in the period in which the unused tax losses could be offset (IAS 12).

Thus at 31 May 2010 it is unlikely that the entity would generate taxable profi ts before the unused tax losses expired. The improved performance in 2010 would not be indicative of future good performance as Cate would have suffered a net loss before tax had it not been for the non-operating gains.

Cate’s anticipation of improved future trading could not alone be regarded as meeting the requirement for strong evidence of future profi ts. When assessing the use of carry-forward tax losses, weight should be given to revenues from existing orders or confi rmed contracts rather than those that are merely expected from improved trading. Estimates of future taxable profi ts can rarely be objectively verifi ed. Thus the recognition of deferred tax assets on losses carried forward is not in accordance with IAS 12 as Cate is not able to provide convincing evidence that suffi cient taxable profi ts would be generated against which the unused tax losses could be offset.

(b) Investment

Cate’s position for an investment where the investor has signifi cant infl uence and its method of calculating fair value can be challenged.

An asset’s recoverable amount represents its greatest value to the business in terms of its cash fl ows that it can generate i.e. the higher of fair value less costs to sell (which is what the asset can be sold for less direct selling expenses) and value in use (the cash fl ows that are expected to be generated from its continued use including those from its ultimate disposal). The asset’s recoverable amount is compared with its carrying value to indicate any impairment. Both net selling price (NSP) and value in use can be diffi cult to determine. However it is not always necessary to calculate both measures, as if the NSP or value in use is greater than the carrying amount, there is no need to estimate the other amount.

It should be possible in this case to calculate a fi gure for the recoverable amount. Cate’s view that market price cannot refl ect the fair value of signifi cant holdings of equity such as an investment in an associate is incorrect as IAS 36 prescribes the method of conducting the impairment test in such circumstances by stating that if there is no binding sale agreement but an asset is traded in an active market, fair value less costs to sell is the asset’s market price less the costs of disposal. Further, the appropriate market price is usually the current bid price.

Additionally the compliance with IAS 28, Investments in associates is in doubt in terms of the non-applicability of value in use when considering impairment. IAS 28 explains that in determining the value in use of the investments, an entity estimates:

(i) its share of the present value of the estimated future cash fl ows expected to be generated by the associate, including the cash fl ows from the operations of the associate and the proceeds on the ultimate disposal of the investment; or
(ii) the present value of the estimated future cash fl ows expected to arise from dividends to be received from the investment and from its ultimate disposal.

Estimates of future cash fl ows should be produced. These cash fl ows are then discounted to present value hence giving value in use.

It seems as though Cate wishes to avoid an impairment charge on the investment.

(c) Disposal group ‘held for sale’

IAS 27 Revised Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements moved IFRS to the use of the economic entity model. The economic entity approach treats all providers of equity capital as shareholders of the entity, even when they are not shareholders in the parent company. IFRS 5 has been amended such that if there is an intention to dispose of a controlling interest in a subsidiary which meets the defi nition of ‘held for sale’, then the net assets are classifi ed as ‘held for sale’, irrespective of whether the parent was expected to retain an interest after the disposal. A partial disposal of an interest in a subsidiary in which the parent company loses control but retains an interest as an associate or trade investment creates the recognition of a gain or loss on the entire interest. A gain or loss is recognised on the part that has been disposed of and a further holding gain or loss is recognised on the interest retained, being the difference between the fair value of the interest and the book value of the interest. The gains are recognised in the statement of comprehensive income. Any prior gains or loss recognised in other components of equity would now become realised in the statement of comprehensive income.

In this case, Cate should stop consolidating Date on a line-by-line basis from the date that control was lost. Further investigation is required into whether the holding is treated as an associate or trade investment. The agreement that Cate is no longer represented on the board or able to participate in management would suggest loss of signifi cant infl uence despite the 35% of voting rights retained. The retained interest would be recognised at fair value.

An entity classifi es a disposal group as held for sale if its carrying amount will be recovered mainly through selling the asset rather than through usage and intends to dispose of it in a single transaction.

The conditions for a non-current asset or disposal group to be classifi ed as held for sale are as follows:

(i) The assets must be available for immediate sale in their present condition and its sale must be highly probable.
(ii) The asset must be currently marketed actively at a price that is reasonable in relational to its current fair value.
(iii) The sale should be completed or expected to be so, within a year from the date of the classifi cation.
(iv) The actions required to complete the planned sale will have been made and it is unlikely that the plan will be signifi cantly changed or withdrawn.
(v) management is committed to a plan to sell.

Cate has not met all of the conditions of IFRS 5 but it could be argued that the best presentation in the fi nancial statements was that set out in IFRS 5 for the following reasons.

The issue of dilution is not addressed by IFRS and the decision not to subscribe to the issue of new shares of Date is clearly a change in the strategy of Cate. Further, by deciding not to subscribe to the issue of new shares of Date, Cate agreed to the dilution and the loss of control which could be argued is similar to a decision to sell shares while retaining a continuing interest in the entity. Also Date represents a separate line of business, which is a determining factor in IFRS 5, and information disclosed on IFRS 5 principles highlights the impact of Date on Cate’s fi nancial statements. Finally, the agreement between Date’s shareholders confi rms that Cate has lost control over its former subsidiary.

Therefore, in the absence of a specifi c Standard or Interpretation applying to this situation, IAS 8 Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and errors states that management should use its judgment and refer to other IFRS and the Framework.

Thus considering the requirements of IAS 27 (Para 32–37) and the above discussion, it could be concluded that the presentation based on IFRS 5 principles selected by the issuer was consistent with the accounting treatment required by IAS 27 when a parent company loses control of a subsidiary.

(d) Defi ned benefi t plan

The Plan is not a defi ned contribution plan because Cate has a legal or constructive obligation to pay further contributions if the fund does not have suffi cient assets to pay all employee benefi ts relating to employee service in the current and prior periods (IAS 19 Para 7). All other post-employment benefi t plans that do not qualify as a defi ned contribution plan are, by defi nition therefore defi ned benefi t plans. Defi ned benefi t plans may be unfunded, or they may be wholly or partly funded. Also IAS 19 (Para 26) indicates that Cate’s plan is a defi ned benefi t plan as IAS 19 provides examples where an entity’s obligation is not limited to the amount that it agrees to contribute to the fund. These examples include: (a) a plan benefi t formula that is not linked solely to the amount of contributions (which is the case in this instance); and (b) those informal practices that give rise to a constructive obligation. According to the terms of the Plan, if Cate opts to terminate, Cate is responsible for discharging the liability created by the plan. IAS 19 (Para 52) says that an entity should account not only for its legal obligation under the formal terms of a defi ned benefi t plan, but also for any constructive obligation that arises from the enterprise’s informal practices. Informal practices give rise to a constructive obligation where the enterprise has no realistic alternative but to pay employee benefi ts. Even if the Plan were not considered to be a defi ned benefi t plan under IAS 19, Cate would have a constructive obligation to provide the benefi t, having a history of paying benefi ts. The practice has created a valid expectation on the part of employees that the amounts will be paid in the future. Therefore Cate should account for the Plan as a defi ned benefi t plan in accordance with IAS 19. Cate has to recognise, at a minimum, its net present liability for the benefi ts to be paid under the Plan.