2019年ACCA考试报考指南：考点分布

正确答案：
(c) Fiduciary responsibility
Definition of ‘fiduciary responsibility’
A fiduciary responsibility is a duty of trust and care towards one or more constituencies. It describes direction of accountability
in that one party has a fiduciary duty to another. In terms of the case, the question refers to whose interests the directors of
the football club should act in. Traditionally, the fiduciary duty of directors in public companies is to act in the economic
interests of shareholders who invest in the company but are unable to manage the company directly. The case raises a number
of issues concerning broadening the fiduciary duties of the directors of the football club with regard to the building of the new
stadium, to other stakeholder groups.
The case for extending fiduciary responsibility
Although the primary fiduciary duty of directors in large public companies will be to shareholders, directors in businesses such
as the football club described in the case may have good reason to broaden their views on fiduciary responsibility. This would
involve taking into account, and acting in the interests of, the local wildlife centre, the residents, the school, the local
government authority and the fans. The stakeholders in the case are not in agreement on the outcome for the new stadium
and the club will need to privilege some stakeholders over others, which is a common situation whenever a proposal involving
multiple impacts is considered. The specific arguments for broadening the fiduciary duties in this case include the following:
Such an acceptance of claims made on the football club would clearly demonstrate that the club values the community of
which it considers itself a part.
It would help to maintain and manage its local reputation, which is important in progressing the stadium project.
To broaden the fiduciary responsibility in this case would be to an important part of the risk management strategy, especially
with regard to risks that could arise from the actions of local stakeholders.
It could be argued that there is a moral case for all organisations to include other stakeholders’ claims in their strategies as it
enfranchises and captures the views of those affected by an organisation’s policies and actions.

正确答案：
(ii) Tethys Ltd – Use of trading loss
– The two companies will not be in a group relief group as Saturn Ltd will not own 75% of Tethys Ltd.
– For a consortium to exist, 75% of the ordinary share capital of Tethys Ltd must be held by companies which each
hold at least 5%. Accordingly, Tethys Ltd will be a consortium company if the balance of its share capital is owned
by Clangers Ltd but not if it is owned by Edith Clanger.
– If Tethys Ltd qualifies as a consortium company: 65% of its trading losses in the period from 1 August 2008 to
31 December 2008 can be surrendered to Saturn Ltd, i.e. ￡21,667 (￡80,000 x 5/12 x 65%).
– If Tethys Ltd does not qualify as a consortium company: none of its loss can be surrendered to Saturn Ltd.
– The acquisition of 65% of Tethys Ltd is a change in ownership of the company. If there is a major change in the
nature or conduct of the trade of Tethys Ltd within three years of 1 August 2008, the loss arising prior to that date
cannot be carried forward for relief in the future.
Further information required:
– Ownership of the balance of the share capital of Tethys Ltd.

正确答案：
(b) Management judgement may have a greater impact under IFRS than generally was the case under national GAAP. IFRS
utilises fair values extensively. Management have to use their judgement in selecting valuation methods and formulating
assumptions when dealing with such areas as onerous contracts, share-based payments, pensions, intangible assets acquired
in business combinations and impairment of assets. Differences in methods or assumptions can have a major impact on
amounts recognised in financial statements. IAS1 expects companies to disclose the sensitivity of carrying amounts to the
methods, assumptions and estimates underpinning their calculation where there is a significant risk of material adjustment
to their carrying amounts within the next financial year. Often management’s judgement is that there is no ‘significant risk’
and they often fail to disclose the degree of estimation or uncertainty and thus comparability is affected.
In addition to the IFRSs themselves, a sound financial reporting infrastructure is required. This implies effective corporate
governance practices, high quality auditing standards and practices, and an effective enforcement or oversight mechanism.
Therefore, consistency and comparability of IFRS financial statements will also depend on the robust nature of the other
elements of the financial reporting infrastructure.
Many preparers of financial statements will have been trained in national GAAP and may not have been trained in the
principles underlying IFRS and this can lead to unintended inconsistencies when implementing IFRS especially where the
accounting profession does not have a CPD requirement. Additionally where the regulatory system of a country is not well
developed, there may not be sufficient market information to utilise fair value measurements and thus this could lead to
hypothetical markets being created or the use of mathematical modelling which again can lead to inconsistencies because of
lack of experience in those countries of utilising these techniques. This problem applies to other assessments or estimates
relating to such things as actuarial valuations, investment property valuations, impairment testing, etc.
The transition to IFRS can bring significant improvement to the quality of financial performance and improve comparability
worldwide. However, there are issues still remaining which can lead to inconsistency and lack of comparability with those
financial statements.