好消息来啦！吉林省工薪阶层想要报考2020年ACCA考试的，你需要知道这些

正确答案：
(c) There are several ethical and professional issues raised in relation to the inventory count of LA Shots Co.
Firstly, it was inappropriate of Brenda Mangle to offer the incentive to the audit juniors. As she is a new manager, it may be
that she didn’t realise how the incentive would be perceived. Brenda should be informed that her actions could have serious
implications.
The offer could be viewed as a bribe of the audit juniors, and could be perceived as a self-interest independence threat as
there is a financial benefit offered to members of the audit team.
The value of the ten bottles of ‘Super Juice’ should be considered, as it is only appropriate for a member of the audit team to
accept any goods or hospitality from the audit client if the value is ‘clearly insignificant’. Ultimately it would be the decision
of the audit partner as to whether the value is clearly insignificant. It is likely that this does not constitute a significant threat
to independence, however the offer should still be referred to the audit partner.
Also, if the juniors took ten bottles of ‘Super Juice’, this could interfere with the physical count of goods and/or with cut off
details obtained at the count. The juniors should therefore have declined the offer and informed a senior member of the audit
team of the situation.
There may be a need to adequately train new members of staff on ethical matters if the juniors were unsure of how to react
to the offer.
The work performed by the juniors at the inventory count must be reviewed. The audit procedures were performed very
quickly compared to last year and therefore sufficient evidence may not have been gathered. In an extreme situation the whole
inventory count may have to be reperformed if it is found that the procedures performed cannot be relied upon.
In addition, the juniors should not have attended the audit client’s office party without the permission of the audit manager.
The party appears to have taken place during work time, when the juniors should have been completing the inventory count
procedures. The two juniors have not acted with due professional consideration, and could be considered to lack integrity.
The actions of the juniors should be discussed with them, possibly with a view to disciplinary action.
There may also be questions over whether the direction and supervision of the juniors was adequate. As the two juniors are
both recent recruits, this is likely to be the first inventory count that they have attended. It appears that they may not have
been adequately briefed as to the importance of the inventory count as a source of audit evidence, or that they have
disregarded any such briefing that was provided to them. In either case possibly a more senior auditor should have
accompanied them to the inventory count and supervised their actions.

正确答案：
(b) ‘Opinion shopping’
Explanation of term
‘Opinion shopping’ occurs when management approach auditing firms (other than their incumbent auditors) to ask their views
on the application of accounting standards or principles to specific circumstances or transactions.
Ethical risks
The reasons for ‘opinion shopping’ may be:
■ to find alternative auditors; or
■ to get advice on a matter of contention with the incumbent auditor.
The member who is not the entity’s auditor must be alert to the possibility that their opinion – if it differs from that of the
incumbent auditor – may create undue pressure on the incumbent auditor’s judgement and so threaten the objectivity of the
audit.
Furthermore, by aligning with the interests of management when negotiating taking on an engagement, an incoming auditor
may compromise their objectivity even before the audit work commences. There is a risk that the audit fee might be seen to
be contingent upon a ‘favourable’ opinion (that is, the audit judgement coinciding with management’s preferences).
Employed professional accountants (accountants in industry) who support their company’s management in seeking second
opinions may call into question their integrity and professional behaviour.
Sufficiency of current ethical guidance
Current ethical guidance requires that when asked to provide a ‘second opinion’ a member should seek to minimise the risk
of giving inappropriate guidance, by ensuring that they have access to all relevant information.
The member should therefore:
■ ascertain why their opinion is being sought;
■ contact the auditor to provide any relevant facts;
■ with the entity’s permission, provide the auditor with a copy of their opinion.
The member’s opinion is more likely to differ if it is based on information which is different (or incomplete) as compared with
that available to the incumbent auditor. The member should therefore decline to act if permission to communicate with the
auditor is not given.
‘Opinion shopping’ might be less prevalent if company directors had no say in the appointment and remuneration of auditors.
If audit appointments were made by an independent body ‘doubtful accounting practices’ would (arguably) be less of a
negotiating factor. However, to be able to appoint auditors to multi-national/global corporations, such measures would require
the backing of regulatory bodies worldwide.
Statutory requirements in this area could also be more stringent. For example, an auditor may be required to deposit a
‘statement of circumstances’ (or a statement of ‘no circumstances’) in the event that they are removed from office or resign.
However, disclosure could be made more public if, when a change in accounting policy coincides with a change of auditors,
the financial statements and auditor’s report highlight the change and the auditors state their concurrence (or otherwise) with
the change. This could be made a statutory requirement and International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) amended to give
guidance on how auditors should report on changes.
Further, if the incoming auditor were to have a statutory right of access to the files and working papers of the outgoing auditors
they would be able to make a better and informed assessment of the desirability of the client and also appreciate the validity
(or otherwise) of any ‘statement’ issued by the outgoing auditor.

正确答案：
(ii) If the directors agree to disclose the note, it should be reviewed by the auditors to ensure that it is sufficiently detailed.
In evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure in the note, the auditor should consider whether the disclosure explicitly
draws the reader’s attention to the possibility that the entity may not be able to continue as a going concern in the
foreseeable future. The note should include a description of conditions giving rise to significant doubt, and the directors’
plans to deal with the conditions. If the note provided contains adequate information then there is no breach of financial
reporting standards, and so no disagreement with the directors.
If the disclosure is considered adequate, then the opinion should not be qualified. The auditors should consider a
modification by adding an emphasis of matter paragraph to highlight the existence of the material uncertainties, and to
draw attention to the note to the financial statements. The emphasis of matter paragraph should firstly contain a brief
description of the uncertainties, and also refer explicitly to the note to the financial statements where the situation has
been fully described. The emphasis of matter paragraph should re-iterate that the audit opinion is not qualified.
However, it could be the case that a note has been given in the financial statements, but that the details are inadequate
and do not fully explain the significant uncertainties affecting the going concern status of the company. In this situation
the auditors should express a qualified opinion, disagreeing with the preparation of the financial statements, as the
disclosure requirements of IAS 1 have not been followed.