内蒙古2020年ACCA国际会计师报考指南——新手报考必看
发布时间:2020-01-09
2020年伊始,相信各位“资深”ACCAer们都知道ACCA国际注册会计师考试是有免试政策的,你了解到自己能免试几个科目吗?51题库考试学习网再次温馨提示一下:这里免试是指的可以不用考试,但免试考试科目的考试费还是要缴的哟~
知道自己能免试几科的ACCAer们虽然可以相对轻松一些,但仍然不可放松警惕、抓紧时间复习才是王道。当然,51题库考试学习网在这里为大家提供了一套关于报考考试科目顺序的宝典(也有除去免试科目的哟),建议各位ACCAer们收藏分享哦~
首先大家先看看最新的免试政策,看看你符合哪个条件,到底能免试几个科目:
一、ACCA对中国教育部认可的全日制大学在读生(会计或金融专业)设置的免试政策:
1.会计学或金融学(完成第一学年课程):可以注册为ACCA正式学员,无免试,仅有报名参加ACCA考试资格。
2.会计学或金融学(完成第二学年课程):也就是完成大二学业,可以免试3门课程(AB-FA)
3.会计学或金融学(完成第三学年课程):完成大三学业,免试5门课程(AB-PM)
4.其他专业(在校生完成大一后):非会计或者金融专业的,完成大一学业之后,即可注册但无免试
二、ACCA对中国教育部认可高校毕业生设置的免试政策:
1.会计学(获得学士学位):本科毕业会计专业的,免试5门课程(AB-PM)
2.会计学(辅修专业):指的是大学第二选修专业为会计的,免试3门课程(AB-FA)
3.金融专业:本科毕业金融专业的,免试5门课程(AB-PM)
4.法律专业:完成本科法律学习获得学位证的,免试1门课程(LW)
5.商务及管理专业:完成商务专业学习或管理专业学习的,免试1门课程(AB)
6.MPAcc专业(获得MPAcc学位或完成MPAcc大纲规定的所有课程、只有论文待完成但需要出具相关证明哟):原则上免试九门课程(AB-FM),其中F6(税务)的免试条件:CICPA全科通过或MPAcc课程中选修了“中国税制”课程。
7.MBA学位(获得MBA学位):免试3门课程(AB-FA)
8.非相关专业:非以上说描述的专业,则无免试
三、注册会计师考生:
1.2009年CICPA“6+1”新制度实行之前获得CICPA全科通过的人员:免试5门课程(AB-LW和TX)
2.2009年CICPA“6+1”新制度实行之后获得CICPA全科通过的人员:免试9们课程(AB-FM)
3.如果在学习ACCA基础阶段科目的过程中获得了CICPA全科合格证(须2009年“6+1”制度实行后的新版证书),可以自行决定是否申请追加免试。
四、其他
1.CMA(美国注册管理会计师)全科通过并取得证书:免试AB-FA
2.USCPA(美国注册会计师)全科通过:免试AB-TX、AA、FM(共免8门)
看完以上最新免试条件,相信各位ACCAer们清楚自己是否有免试的资格和免试几个科目了,那么接下来就是大家十分期待的:如何合理搭配考试科目,才能最大化的通过考试?
ACCA考试科目共15科,分为四个大模块:知识模块(ACCA考试科目AB-FA)、技能模块(ACCA考试科目LW-FM)、核心模块(ACCA考试科目SBL&SBR)、选修模块(ACCA考试科目AFM-AAA)。学员只需要通过11门必修科目及2门选修科目共13门课程即可通过考试,获得ACCA证书。
不过,总体来说,ACCA考试科目有两个部分:基础阶段和专业阶段。主要的学习内容是哪些呢?它们各自有哪些特点呢?
第一部分为基础阶段,主要分为知识课程和技能课程两个部分。知识课程主要涉及财务会计和管理会计方面的核心知识,也为接下去进行技能阶段的详细学习搭建了一个平台。技能课程共有六门课程,广泛的涵盖了一名会计师所涉及的知识领域及必须掌握的技能。这一部分是对学员基础知识的考核和巩固,在ACCA考试中也只有通过了基础阶段的部分才可以报考专业阶段的部分,这个顺序是固定的不能变的。
第二部分为专业阶段,主要分为核心课程和选修(四选二)课程。该阶段的课程相当于硕士阶段的课程难度,是对第一部分课程的引申和发展。因此对各位考生的要求将会更加的严格,该阶段课程引入了作为未来的高级会计师所必须的更高级的职业技能和知识技能。选修课程为从事高级管理咨询或顾问职业的学员,设计了解决更高级和更复杂的问题的技能。因此这一部分必须要求考试基础十分牢固,并且理解能力和学习能力都要更上一层楼才可以。
51题库考试学习网先大致将考生的情况分成三种:无免考、免考1~2科、免考超过3科,免考的科目数目的不同,考试科目的搭配建议有所不同。
1、无免考情况考试科目搭配
51题库考试学习网建议各位考生从相对简单的科目入手,层层深入,让自己慢慢适应考试难度。所以还是从最基本的科目F1、F2、F3开始考,F1、F2、F3相对较简单,如果不想一次考三科,可以按F1-F3-F2这个顺序来报考。这三科为机考形式,有70%的选择题,所以在ACCA的入门阶段还是相对较简单的,通过率相对于后面的科目还是高很多的,中国考生的通过率也普遍较高。
F6、F7、F9,这些科目计算偏多,考试时笔试语言相对其他科目较少,接受起来相对容易;而F4、F5、F8属于文字较多的科目,对于写作能力要求相对强一些。因此计算能力强或者说对数字敏感的考生可以报考F6、F7、F9,而擅长写作和语言能力的考试就先报考F4、F5、F8。注意哦,这里不建议一次性报考所以计算科目或者语言文字类的科目,建议将这两类考试分开报,擅长哪一类就多报一科即可。
2、免考1-2科情况考试科目搭配
对于英语能力稍强的同学,建议还是按科目本身的顺序来报考。如果是第一次考的话,报考最多不要超过2科,压力可能会有点大,防止后期学习时间无法保证,可能会导致需要放弃某科考试而浪费金钱和时间的后果,得不偿失。因此,建议考生要根据自己的实际能力来报考考试,因为毕竟考试的有效期是7年,时间还算长,不用担心通过的考试成绩过期无效。
3、免考超过3科情况考试科目搭配
如果是英语能力稍弱的同学,建议可以从计算偏多的科目开始报考,比如F6、F7、F9,这些科目计算多于论述,因此备考起来相对容易;相对地,F4、F5、F8属于需要写的比较多的科目,对于英语的文字能力要求相对强一些。当然,这些只是建议,学员也可以根据自身的具体情况来决定报考科目,学会搭配科目可以大大地促进学习效率。51题库考试学习网建议大家科学地备考,善于发现科目与科目之间存在的相似性,或许一个知识点可以反复在不同考试科目中利用也说不定哦~
此外,根据网上对1000名ACCA自学考生的调查发现:2门科目最佳搭配组合是:F7/F8、F4/F5、F8/F9、F4/F6、F5/F9、F6/F7。以此类推,当然这具体需要按照自己对各科目的知识点熟悉程度综合而定。
科目搭配报考是门学问,考生根据具体情况,按照自身对项目知识点的熟悉程度进行合理的科目搭配,第一次的话每次报考两门课程,不要超过三门,以免后期学习时间无法保证,导致需要放弃某科考试而浪费金钱和时间。
以上就是关于ACCA考试报考科目顺序的一些建议,总而言之,大家还是需要根据自己实际的学习情况来报考,毕竟这些技巧是死的,人是活的,只有适合自己的才是最科学的方法,最后祝大家考试顺利通过~
下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。
2 Your audit client, Prescott Co, is a national hotel group with substantial cash resources. Its accounting functions are
well managed and the group accounting policies are rigorously applied. The company’s financial year end is
31 December.
Prescott has been seeking to acquire a construction company for some time in order to bring in-house the building
and refurbishment of hotels and related leisure facilities (e.g. swimming pools, squash courts and restaurants).
Prescott’s management has recently identified Robson Construction Co as a potential target and has urgently requested
that you undertake a limited due diligence review lasting two days next week.
Further to their preliminary talks with Robson’s management, Prescott has provided you with the following brief on
Robson Construction Co:
The chief executive, managing director and finance director are all family members and major shareholders. The
company name has an established reputation for quality constructions.
Due to a recession in the building trade the company has been operating at its overdraft limit for the last 18
months and has been close to breaching debt covenants on several occasions.
Robson’s accounting policies are generally less prudent than those of Prescott (e.g. assets are depreciated over
longer estimated useful lives).
Contract revenue is recognised on the percentage of completion method, measured by reference to costs incurred
to date. Provisions are made for loss-making contracts.
The company’s management team includes a qualified and experienced quantity surveyor. His main
responsibilities include:
(1) supervising quarterly physical counts at major construction sites;
(2) comparing costs to date against quarterly rolling budgets; and
(3) determining profits and losses by contract at each financial year end.
Although much of the labour is provided under subcontracts all construction work is supervised by full-time site
managers.
In August 2005, Robson received a claim that a site on which it built a housing development in 2002 was not
properly drained and is now subsiding. Residents are demanding rectification and claiming damages. Robson
has referred the matter to its lawyers and denied all liability, as the site preparation was subcontracted to Sarwar
Services Co. No provisions have been made in respect of the claims, nor has any disclosure been made.
The auditor’s report on Robson’s financial statements for the year to 30 June 2005 was signed, without
modification, in March 2006.
Required:
(a) Identify and explain the specific matters to be clarified in the terms of engagement for this due diligence
review of Robson Construction Co. (6 marks)
2 PRESCOTT CO
(a) Terms of engagement – matters to be clarified
Tutorial note: This one-off assignment requires a separate letter of engagement. Note that, at this level, a standard list of
contents will earn few, if any, marks. Any ‘ideas list’ must be tailored to generate answer points specific to the due diligence
review of this target company.
■ Objective of the review: for example, to find and report facts relevant to Prescott’s decision whether to acquire Robson.
The terms should confirm whether Prescott’s interest is in acquiring the company (i.e. the share capital) or its trading
assets (say), as this will affect the nature and scope of the review.
Tutorial note: This is implied as Prescott ‘has been seeking to acquire ... to bring building … in-house’.
■ Prescott’s management will be solely responsible for any decision made (e.g. any offer price made to purchase Robson).
■ The nature and scope of the review and any standards/guidelines in accordance with which it will be conducted. That
investigation will consist of enquiry (e.g. of the directors and the quantity surveyor) and analytical procedures (e.g. on
budgeted information and prior period financial statements).
Tutorial note: This is not going to be a review of financial statements. The prior year financial statements have only
recently been audited and financial statements for the year end 30 June 2006 will not be available in time for the
review.
■ The level of assurance will be ‘negative’. That is, that the material subject to review is free of material misstatement. It
should be stated that an audit is not being performed and that an audit opinion will not be expressed.
■ The timeframe. for conducting the investigation (two days next week) and the deadline for reporting the findings.
■ The records, documentation and other information to which access will be unrestricted. This will be the subject of
agreement between Prescott and Robson.
■ A responsibility/liability disclaimer that the engagement cannot be relied upon to disclose errors, illegal acts or other
irregularities (e.g. fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriations of Robson’s assets).
Tutorial note: Third party reliance on the report seems unlikely as Prescott has ‘substantial cash resources’ and may not
need to obtain loan finance.
1 Your client, Island Co, is a manufacturer of machinery used in the coal extraction industry. You are currently planning
the audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2007. The draft financial statements show
revenue of $125 million (2006 – $103 million), profit before tax of $5·6 million (2006 – $5·1 million) and total
assets of $95 million (2006 – $90 million). Your firm was appointed as auditor to Island Co for the first time in June
2007.
Island Co designs, constructs and installs machinery for five key customers. Payment is due in three instalments: 50%
is due when the order is confirmed (stage one), 25% on delivery of the machinery (stage two), and 25% on successful
installation in the customer’s coal mine (stage three). Generally it takes six months from the order being finalised until
the final installation.
At 30 November, there is an amount outstanding of $2·85 million from Jacks Mine Co. The amount is a disputed
stage three payment. Jacks Mine Co is refusing to pay until the machinery, which was installed in August 2007, is
running at 100% efficiency.
One customer, Sawyer Co, communicated in November 2007, via its lawyers with Island Co, claiming damages for
injuries suffered by a drilling machine operator whose arm was severely injured when a machine malfunctioned. Kate
Shannon, the chief executive officer of Island Co, has told you that the claim is being ignored as it is generally known
that Sawyer Co has a poor health and safety record, and thus the accident was their fault. Two orders which were
placed by Sawyer Co in October 2007 have been cancelled.
Work in progress is valued at $8·5 million at 30 November 2007. A physical inventory count was held on
17 November 2007. The chief engineer estimated the stage of completion of each machine at that date. One of the
major components included in the coal extracting machinery is now being sourced from overseas. The new supplier,
Locke Co, is located in Spain and invoices Island Co in euros. There is a trade payable of $1·5 million owing to Locke
Co recorded within current liabilities.
All machines are supplied carrying a one year warranty. A warranty provision is recognised on the balance sheet at
$2·5 million (2006 – $2·4 million). Kate Shannon estimates the cost of repairing defective machinery reported by
customers, and this estimate forms the basis of the provision.
Kate Shannon owns 60% of the shares in Island Co. She also owns 55% of Pacific Co, which leases a head office to
Island Co. Kate is considering selling some of her shares in Island Co in late January 2008, and would like the audit
to be finished by that time.
Required:
(a) Using the information provided, identify and explain the principal audit risks, and any other matters to be
considered when planning the final audit for Island Co for the year ended 30 November 2007.
Note: your answer should be presented in the format of briefing notes to be used at a planning meeting.
Requirement (a) includes 2 professional marks. (13 marks)
1 ISLAND CO
(a) Briefing Notes
Subject: Principal Audit Risks – Island Co
Revenue Recognition – timing
Island Co raises sales invoices in three stages. There is potential for breach of IAS 18 Revenue, which states that revenue
should only be recognised once the seller has the right to receive it, in other words the seller has performed its contractual
obligations. This right does not necessarily correspond to amounts falling due for payment in accordance with an invoice
schedule agreed with a customer as part of a contract. Island Co appears to receive payment from its customers in advance
of performing any obligation, as the stage one invoice is raised when an order is confirmed i.e. before any work has actually
taken place. This creates the potential for revenue to be recognised too early, in advance of any performance of contractual
obligation. When a payment is received in advance of performance, a liability should be recognised equal to the amount
received, representing the obligation under the contract. Therefore a significant risk is that revenue is overstated and liabilities
understated.
Tutorial note: Equivalent guidance is also provided in IAS 11 Construction Contracts and credit will be awarded where
candidates discuss revenue recognition under IAS 11 as Island Co is providing a single substantial asset for a customer
under the terms of a contract.
Disputed receivable
The amount owed from Jacks Mine Co is highly material as it represents 50·9% of profit before tax, 2·3% of revenue, and
3% of total assets. The risk is that the receivable is overstated if no impairment of the disputed receivable is recognised.
Legal claim
The claim should be investigated seriously by Island Co. The chief executive officer’s (CEO) opinion that the claim will not
result in any financial consequence for Island Co is na?ve and flippant. Damages could be awarded against Island Co if it is
found that the machinery is faulty. The recurring high level of warranty provision implies that machinery faults are fairly
common and therefore the accident could be the result of a defective machine being supplied to Sawyer Co. The risk is that
no provision is created for the potential damages under IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, if the
likelihood of paying damages is considered probable. Alternatively, if the likelihood of damages being paid to Sawyer Co is
considered a possibility then a disclosure note should be made in the financial statements describing the nature and possible
financial effect of the contingent liability. As discussed below, the CEO, Kate Shannon, has an incentive not to make a
provision or disclose a contingent liability due to the planned share sale post year end.
A further risk is that any legal fees associated with the claim have not been accrued within the financial statements. As the
claim has arisen during the year, the expense must be included in this year’s income statement, even if the claim is still ongoing
at the year end.
The fact that the legal claim is effectively being ignored may cast doubts on the overall integrity of senior management, and
on the integrity of the financial statements. Management representations should be approached with a degree of professional
scepticism during the audit.
Sawyer Co has cancelled two orders. If the amounts are still outstanding at the year end then it is highly likely that Sawyer
Co will not pay the invoiced amounts, and thus receivables are overstated. If the stage one payments have already been made,
then Sawyer Co may claim a refund, in which case a provision should be made to repay the amount, or a contingent liability
disclosed in a note to the financial statements.
Sawyer Co is one of only five major customers, and losing this customer could have future going concern implications for
Island Co if a new source of revenue cannot be found to replace the lost income stream from Sawyer Co. If the legal claim
becomes public knowledge, and if Island Co is found to have supplied faulty machinery, then it will be difficult to attract new
customers.
A case of this nature could bring bad publicity to Island Co, a potential going concern issue if it results in any of the five key
customers terminating orders with Island Co. The auditors should plan to extend the going concern work programme to
incorporate the issues noted above.
Inventories
Work in progress is material to the financial statements, representing 8·9% of total assets. The inventory count was held two
weeks prior to the year end. There is an inherent risk that the valuation has not been correctly rolled forward to a year end
position.
The key risk is the estimation of the stage of completion of work in progress. This is subjective, and knowledge appears to
be confined to the chief engineer. Inventory could be overvalued if the machines are assessed to be more complete than they
actually are at the year end. Absorption of labour costs and overheads into each machine is a complex calculation and must
be done consistently with previous years.
It will also be important that consumable inventories not yet utilised on a machine, e.g. screws, nuts and bolts, are correctly
valued and included as inventories of raw materials within current assets.
Overseas supplier
As the supplier is new, controls may not yet have been established over the recording of foreign currency transactions.
Inherent risk is high as the trade payable should be retranslated using the year end exchange rate per IAS 21 The Effects of
Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates. If the retranslation is not performed at the year end, the trade payable could be
significantly over or under valued, depending on the movement of the dollar to euro exchange rate between the purchase date
and the year end. The components should remain at historic cost within inventory valuation and should not be retranslated
at the year end.
Warranty provision
The warranty provision is material at 2·6% of total assets (2006 – 2·7%). The provision has increased by only $100,000,
an increase of 4·2%, compared to a revenue increase of 21·4%. This could indicate an underprovision as the percentage
change in revenue would be expected to be in line with the percentage change in the warranty provision, unless significant
improvements had been made to the quality of machines installed for customers during the year. This appears unlikely given
the legal claim by Sawyer Co, and the machines installed at Jacks Mine Co operating inefficiently. The basis of the estimate
could be understated to avoid charging the increase in the provision as an expense through the income statement. This is of
special concern given that it is the CEO and majority shareholder who estimates the warranty provision.
Majority shareholder
Kate Shannon exerts control over Island Co via a majority shareholding, and by holding the position of CEO. This greatly
increases the inherent risk that the financial statements could be deliberately misstated, i.e. overvaluation of assets,
undervaluation of liabilities, and thus overstatement of profits. The risk is severe at this year end as Kate Shannon is hoping
to sell some Island Co shares post year end. As the price that she receives for these shares will be to a large extent influenced
by the balance sheet position of the company at 30 November 2007, she has a definite interest in manipulating the financial
statements for her own personal benefit. For example:
– Not recognising a provision or contingent liability for the legal claim from Sawyer Co
– Not providing for the potentially irrecoverable receivable from Jacks Mines Co
– Not increasing the warranty provision
– Recognising revenue earlier than permitted by IAS 18 Revenue.
Related party transactions
Kate Shannon controls Island Co and also controls Pacific Co. Transactions between the two companies should be disclosed
per IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures. There is risk that not all transactions have been disclosed, or that a transaction has
been disclosed at an inappropriate value. Details of the lease contract between the two companies should be disclosed within
a note to the financial statements, in particular, any amounts owed from Island Co to Pacific Co at 30 November 2007 should
be disclosed.
Other issues
– Kate Shannon wants the audit to be completed as soon as possible, which brings forward the deadline for completion
of the audit. The audit team may not have time to complete all necessary procedures, or there may not be time for
adequate reviews to be carried out on the work performed. Detection risk, and thus audit risk is increased, and the
overall quality of the audit could be jeopardised.
– This is especially important given that this is the first year audit and therefore the audit team will be working with a
steep learning curve. Audit procedures may take longer than originally planned, yet there is little time to extend
procedures where necessary.
– Kate Shannon may also exert considerable influence on the members of the audit team to ensure that the financial
statements show the best possible position of Island Co in view of her share sale. It is crucial that the audit team
members adhere strictly to ethical guidelines and that independence is beyond question.
– Due to the seriousness of the matters noted above, a final matter to be considered at the planning stage is that a second
partner review (Engagement Quality Control Review) should be considered for the audit this year end. A suitable
independent reviewer should be indentified, and time planned and budgeted for at the end of the assignment.
Conclusion
From the range of issues discussed in these briefing notes, it can be seen that the audit of Island Co will be a relatively high
risk engagement.
(c) Identify TWO QUALITATIVE benefits that might arise as a consequence of the investment in a new IT system
and explain how you would attempt to assess them. (4 marks)
(c) One of the main qualitative benefits that may arise from an investment in a new IT system by Moffat Ltd is the improved level
of service to its customers in the form. of reduced waiting times which may arise as a consequence of better scheduling of
appointments, inventory management etc. This could be assessed via the introduction of a questionnaire requiring customers
to rate the service that they have received from their recent visit to a location within Moffat Ltd according to specific criteria
such as adherence to appointment times, time taken to service the vehicle, cleanliness of the vehicle, attitude of staff etc.
Alternatively a follow-up telephone call from a centralised customer services department may be made by Moffat Ltd
personnel in order to gather such information.
Another qualitative benefit of the proposed investment may arise in the form. of competitive advantage. Improvements in
customer specific information and service levels may give Moffat Ltd a competitive advantage. Likewise, improved inventory
management may enable costs to be reduced thereby enabling a ‘win-win’ relationship to be enjoyed with its customers.
(b) (i) State the condition that would need to be satisfied for the exercise of Paul’s share options in Memphis
plc to be exempt from income tax and the tax implications if this condition is not satisfied.
(2 marks)
(b) (i) Paul has options in an HMRC approved share scheme. Under such schemes, no tax liabilities arise either on the grant
or exercise of the option. The excess of the proceeds over the price paid for the shares (the exercise price) is charged to
capital gains tax on their disposal.
However, in order to secure this treatment, one of the conditions to be satisfied is that the options cannot be exercised
within three years of the date of grant. If Paul were to exercise his options now (i.e. before the third anniversary of the
grant), the exercise would instead be treated as an unapproved exercise. At that date, income tax would be charged on
the difference between the market value of the shares on exercise and the price paid to exercise the option.
声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。
- 2020-10-09
- 2021-04-23
- 2020-04-30
- 2020-03-22
- 2020-01-10
- 2020-05-09
- 2021-09-12
- 2020-04-07
- 2020-05-16
- 2020-05-17
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-03-04
- 2020-04-18
- 2020-01-10
- 2020-01-08
- 2020-03-07
- 2020-01-09
- 2019-07-21
- 2020-02-20
- 2020-10-09
- 2020-03-29
- 2020-01-08
- 2020-04-28
- 2020-01-10
- 2020-02-29
- 2020-01-10
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-01-10
- 2020-05-16
- 2020-05-24