你想知道acca考试报名总费用是多少人民币吗？

正确答案：
(a) The management of an organisation need to exercise control at different levels within an organisation. These levels are often
categorised as being strategic, tactical and operational. The information required by management at these levels varies in
nature and content.
Strategic information
Strategic information is required by the management of an organisation in order to enable management to take a longer term
view of the business and assess how the business may perform. during that period. The length of this longer term view will
vary from one organisation to another, being very much dependent upon the nature of the business and the ability of those
responsible for strategic direction to be able to scan the planning horizon. Strategic information tends to be holistic and
summary in nature and would be used by management when, for example, undertaking SWOT analysis. In Moffat Ltd
strategic information might relate to the development of new services such as the provision of a home-based vehicle recovery
service or the provision of twenty-four hour servicing. Other examples would relate to the threats posed by Moffat Ltd’s
competitors or assessing the potential acquisition of a tyre manufacturer in order to enhance customer value via improved
efficiency and lower costs.
Tactical information
Tactical information is required in order to facilitate management planning and control for shorter time periods than strategic
information. Such information relates to the tactics that management adopt in order to achieve a specific course of action. In
Moffat Ltd this might involve the consideration of whether to open an additional outlet in another part of the country or
whether to employ additional supervisors at each outlet in order to improve the quality of service provision to its customers.
Operational information
Operational information relates to a very short time scale and is often used to determine immediate actions by those
responsible for day-to-day management. In Moffat Ltd, the manager at each location within Moffat Ltd would require
information relating to the level of customer sales, the number of vehicles serviced and the number of complaints received
during a week. Operational information might be used within Moffat Ltd in order to determine whether staff are required to
work overtime due to an unanticipated increase in demand, or whether operatives require further training due to excessive
time being spent on servicing certain types of vehicle.

正确答案：
(a) Backflush accounting focuses upon output of an organisation and then works backwards when allocating costs between cost
of goods sold and inventories. It can be argued that backflush accounting simplifies costing since it ignores both labour
variances and work-in-progress. Whilst in a perfect just-in-time environment there would be no work-in-progress at all, there
will in practice be a small amount of work-in-progress in the system at any point in time. This amount, however, is likely to
be negligible in quantity and therefore not significant in terms of value. Thus, a backflush accounting system simplifies the
accounting records by avoiding the need to follow the movement of materials and work-in-progress through the manufacturing
process within the organisation.
The backflush accounting system is likely to involve the maintenance of a raw materials and work-in–progress account
together with a finished goods account. The use of standard costs and variances is likely to be incorporated into the
accounting entries. Transfers from raw materials and work-in-progress account to finished goods (or cost of sales) will probably
be made at standard cost. The difference between the actual inputs and the standard charges from the raw materials and
work-in-progress account will be recorded as a residual variance, which will be recorded in the profit and loss account. Thus,
it is essential that standard costs are a good surrogate for actual costs if large variances are to be avoided. Backflush
accounting is ideally suited to a just-in-time philosophy and is employed where the overall cycle time is relatively short and
inventory levels are low. Naturally, management will still be eager to ascertain the cause of any variances that arise from the
inefficient usage of materials, labour and overhead. However investigations are far more likely to be undertaken using nonfinancial
performance indicators as opposed to detailed cost variances.

正确答案：
(a) The IASB wish their standards to be ‘principles-based’ and in order for this to be the case, the standards must be based on
fundamental concepts. These concepts need to constitute a framework which is sound, comprehensive and internally
consistent. Without agreement on a framework, standard setting is based upon the personal conceptual frameworks of the
individual standard setters which may change as the membership of the body changes and results in standards that are not
consistent with each other. Such a framework is designed not only to assist standard setters, but also preparers of financial
statements, auditors and users.
A common goal of the IASB is to converge their standards with national standard setters. The IASB will encounter difficulties
converging their standards if decisions are based on different frameworks. The IASB has been pursuing a number of projects
that are aimed at achieving short term convergence on certain issues with national standard setters as well as major projects
with them. Convergence will be difficult if there is no consistency in the underlying framework being used.
Frameworks differ in their authoritative status. The IASB’s Framework requires management to expressly consider the
Framework if no standard or interpretation specifically applies or deals with a similar and related issue. However, certain
frameworks have a lower standing. For example, entities are not required to consider the concepts embodied in certain
national frameworks in preparing financial statements. Thus the development of an agreed framework would eliminate
differences in the authoritative standing of conceptual frameworks and lead to greater consistency in financial statements
internationally.
The existing concepts within most frameworks are quite similar. However, these concepts need revising to reflect changes in
markets, business practices and the economic environment since the concepts were developed. The existing frameworks need
developing to reflect these changes and to fill gaps in the frameworks. For example, the IASB’s Framework does not contain
a definition of the reporting entity. An agreed international framework could deal with this problem, especially if priority was
given to the issues likely to give short-term standard setting benefits.
Many standard setting bodies attempted initially to resolve accounting and reporting problems by developing accounting
standards without an accepted theoretical frame. of reference. The result has been inconsistency in the development of
standards both nationally and internationally. The frameworks were developed when several of their current standards were
in existence. In the absence of an agreed conceptual framework the same theoretical issues are revisited on several occasions
by standard setters. The result is inconsistencies and incompatible concepts. Examples of this are substance over form. and
matching versus prudence. Some standard setters such as the IASB permit two methods of accounting for the same set of
circumstances. An example is the accounting for joint ventures where the equity method and proportionate consolidation are
allowed.
Additionally there have been differences in the way that standard setters have practically used the principles in the framework.
Some national standard setters have produced a large number of highly detailed accounting rules with less emphasis on
general principles. A robust framework might reduce the need for detailed rules although some companies operate in a
different legal and statutory context than other entities. It is important that a framework must result in standards that account
appropriately for actual business practice.
An agreed framework will not solve all accounting issues, nor will it obviate the need for judgement to be exercised in resolving
accounting issues. It can provide a framework within which those judgements can be made.
A framework provides standard setters with both a foundation for setting standards, and concepts to use as tools for resolving
accounting and reporting issues. A framework provides a basic reasoning on which to consider the merits of alternatives. It
does not provide all the answers, but narrows the range of alternatives to be considered by eliminating some that are
inconsistent with it. It, thereby, contributes to greater efficiency in the standard setting process by avoiding the necessity of
having to redebate fundamental issues and facilitates any debate about specific technical issues. A framework should also
reduce political pressures in making accounting judgements. The use of a framework reduces the influence of personal biases
in accounting decisions.
However, concepts statements are by their nature very general and theoretical in their wording, which leads to alternative
conclusions being drawn. Whilst individual standards should be consistent with the Framework, in the absence of a specific
standard, it does not follow that concepts will provide practical solutions. IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’ sets out a hierarchy of authoritative guidance that should be considered in the absence of a standard.
In this case, management can use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy, albeit by considering the
IASB framework, but can also use accounting standards issued by other bodies. Thus an international framework may nottotally provide solutions to practical accounting problems.

正确答案：
(c) A joint audit is when two or more audit firms are jointly responsible for giving the audit opinion. This is very common in a
group situation where the principal auditor is appointed jointly with the auditor of a subsidiary to provide a joint opinion on
the subsidiary’s financial statements. There are several advantages and disadvantages in a joint audit being performed.
Advantages
It can be beneficial in terms of audit efficiency for a joint audit to be conducted, especially in the case of a new subsidiary.
In this case, Lead & Co will have built up an understanding of Maxwell Co’s business, systems and controls, and financial
statement issues. It will be time efficient for the two firms of auditors to work together in order for Chien & Co to build up
knowledge of the new subsidiary. This is a key issue, as Chien & Co need to acquire a thorough understanding of the
subsidiary in order to assess any risks inherent in the company which could impact on the overall assessment of risk within
the group. Lead & Co will be able to provide a good insight into the company, and advise Chien & Co of the key risk areas
they have previously identified.
On the practical side, it seems that Maxwell Co is a significant addition to the group, as it is expected to increase operating
facilities by 40%. If Chien & Co were appointed as sole auditors to Maxwell Co it may be difficult for the audit firm to provide
adequate resources to conduct the audit at the same time as auditing the other group companies. A joint audit will allow
sufficient resources to be allocated to the audit of Maxwell Co, assuring the quality of the opinion provided.
If there is a tight deadline, as is common with the audit of subsidiaries, which should be completed before the group audit
commences, then having access to two firms’ resources should enable the audit to be completed in good time.
The audit should also benefit from an improvement in quality. The two audit firms may have different points of view, and
would be able to discuss contentious issues throughout the audit process. In particular, the newly appointed audit team will
have a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and be able to offer new insight to matters identified. It should be easier to challenge management
and therefore ensure that the auditors’ position is taken seriously.
Tutorial note: Candidates may have referred to the recent debate over whether joint audits increase competition in the
profession. In particular, joint audits have been proposed as a way for ‘mid tier’ audit firms to break into the market of
auditing large companies and groups, which at the moment is monopolised by the ‘Big 4’. Although this does not answer
the specific question set, credit will be awarded for demonstration of awareness of this topical issue.
Disadvantages
For the client, it is likely to be more expensive to engage two audit firms than to have the audit opinion provided by one firm.
From a cost/benefit point of view there is clearly no point in paying twice for one opinion to be provided. Despite the audit
workload being shared, both firms will have a high cost for being involved in the audit in terms of senior manager and partner
time. These costs will be passed on to the client within the audit fee.
The two audit firms may use very different audit approaches and terminology. This could make it difficult for the audit firms
to work closely together, negating some of the efficiency and cost benefits discussed above. Problems could arise in deciding
which firm’s method to use, for example, to calculate materiality, design and pick samples for audit procedures, or evaluate
controls within the accounting system. It may be impossible to reconcile two different methods and one firm’s methods may
end up dominating the audit process, which then eliminates the benefit of a joint audit being conducted. It could be time
consuming to develop a ‘joint’ audit approach, based on elements of each of the two firms’ methodologies, time which
obviously would not have been spent if a single firm was providing the audit.
There may be problems for the two audit firms to work together harmoniously. Lead & Co may feel that ultimately they will
be replaced by Chien & Co as audit provider, and therefore could be unwilling to offer assistance and help.
Potentially, problems could arise in terms of liability. In the event of litigation, because both firms have provided the audit
opinion, it follows that the firms would be jointly liable. The firms could blame each other for any negligence which was
discovered, making the litigation process more complex than if a single audit firm had provided the opinion. However, it could
be argued that joint liability is not necessarily a drawback, as the firms should both be covered by professional indemnity
insurance.