上海市2020年ACCA国际会计师报考指南

正确答案：
(c) Non-consolidated entities under common control
■ Horizontal groups of entities under common control were a significant feature of the Enron and Parmalat business
empires.
■ Such business empires increase audit risk as fraud is often disguised through labyrinthine group structures. Hence
auditors need to understand and confirm the economic purpose of entities within business empires (as well as special
purpose entities (SPEs) and non-trading entities).
■ Horizontal groups fall outside the requirement for the preparation of group accounts. It is not only finance that is offbalance
sheet when controlled entities are excluded from consolidated financial statements.
■ In the absence of consolidated financial statements, users of accounts of entities in horizontal groups have to rely on the
disclosure of related party transactions and control relationships for information about transactions and arrangements
with other group entities. Difficulties faced by auditors include:
? failing to detect related party transactions and control relationships;
? not understanding the substance of transactions with entities under common control;
? excessively creative tax planning;
? the implications of transfer pricing (e.g. failure to recognise profits unrealised at the business empire level);
? a lack of access to relevant confidential information held by others;
? relying on representations made in good faith by those whom the auditors believe manage the company when
control rests elsewhere.
■ Audit work is inevitably increased if an auditor is put upon inquiry to investigate dubious transactions and arrangements.
However, the complexity of business empires across multiple jurisdictions with different auditors may deter auditors from
liaising with other auditors (especially where legal or professional confidentiality considerations prevent this).

正确答案：

(ii) As far as annual agreements relating to property work are concerned, HLP had a take up rate of 82·5% whereas MAS
had a take up rate of only 50%. Therefore, HLP has ‘lost out’ to competitor MAS in relative financial terms as regards
the ‘take-up’ of consultations relating to property work. This is because both HLP and MAS received an annual fee from
each property client irrespective of the number of consultations given. MAS should therefore have had a better profit
margin from this area of business than HLP. However, the extent to which HLP has ‘lost out’ cannot be quantified since
we would need to know the variable costs per consultation and this detail is not available. What we do know is that
HLP earned actual revenue per effective consultation amounting to ￡90·90 whereas the budgeted revenue per
consultation amounted to ￡100. MAS earned ￡120 per effective consultation.
The same picture emerges from annual agreements relating to commercial work. HLP had a budgeted take up rate of
50%, however the actual take up rate during the period was 90%. MAS had an actual take up rate of 50%. The actual
revenue per effective consultation earned by HLP amounted to ￡167 whereas the budgeted revenue per consultation
amounted to ￡300. MAS earned ￡250 per effective consultation.
There could possibly be an upside to this situation for HLP in that it might be the case that the uptake of 90% of
consultations without further charge by clients holding annual agreements in respect of commercial work might be
indicative of a high level of customer satisfaction. It could on the other hand be indicative of a mindset which says ‘I
have already paid for these consultations therefore I am going to request them’.
(iii) Budgeted and actual salaries in HLP were ￡50,000 per annum, per advisor. Two additional advisors were employed
during the year in order to provide consultations in respect of commercial work. MAS paid a salary of ￡60,000 to each
advisor which is 20% higher than the salary of ￡50,000 paid to each advisor by HLP. Perhaps this is indicative that
the advisors employed by MAS are more experienced and/or better qualified than those employed by HLP.
HLP paid indemnity insurance of ￡250,000 which is ￡150,000 (150%) more than the amount of ￡100,000 paid by
MAS. This excess cost may well have arisen as a consequence of successful claims against HLP for negligence in
undertaking commercial work. It would be interesting to know whether HLP had been the subject of any successful
claims for negligent work during recent years as premiums invariably reflect the claims history of a business. Rather
worrying is the fact that HLP was subject to three such claims during the year ended 31 May 2007.
Significant subcontract costs were incurred by HLP during the year probably in an attempt to satisfy demand and retain
the goodwill of its clients. HLP incurred subcontract costs in respect of commercial properties which totalled ￡144,000.
These consultations earned revenue amounting to (320 x ￡150) = ￡48,000, hence a loss of ￡96,000 was incurred
in this area of the business.
HLP also paid ￡300,000 for 600 subcontract consultations in respect of litigation work. These consultations earned
revenue amounting to (600 x ￡250) = ￡150,000, hence a loss of ￡150,000 was incurred in this area of the business.
In contrast, MAS paid ￡7,000 for 20 subcontract consultations in respect of commercial work and an identical amount
for 20 subcontract consultations in respect of litigation work. These consultations earned revenue amounting to
20 x (￡150 + ￡200) =￡7,000. Therefore, a loss of only ￡7,000 was incurred in respect of subcontract consultations
by MAS.
Other operating expenses were budgeted at 53·0% of sales revenue. The actual level incurred was 40·7% of sales
revenue. The fixed/variable split of such costs is not given but it may well be the case that the fall in this percentage is
due to good cost control by HLP. However, it might simply be the case that the original budget was flawed. Competitor
MAS would appear to have a slightly superior cost structure to that of HLP since its other operating expenses amounted
to 38·4% of sales revenue. Further information is required in order to draw firmer conclusions regarding cost control
within both businesses.

正确答案：

You will be aware of the importance of accurate resource valuation to Worldwide Minerals (WM). Unfortunately, I have to
inform. you that the reserve of mallerite, one of our key minerals in a new area of exploration, was found to have been
overestimated after the purchase of a mine. It has been suggested that this information may have an effect on shareholder
value and so I thought it appropriate to write to inform. you of how the board intends to respond to the situation.
In particular, I would like to address two issues. It has been suggested that the overestimation arose because of issues with
the internal control systems at WM. I would firstly like to reassure you of the importance that your board places on sound
internal control systems and then I would like to highlight improvements to internal controls that we shall be implementing
to ensure that the problem should not recur.
(i) Importance of internal control
Internal control systems are essential in all public companies and Worldwide Minerals (WM) is no exception. If anything,
WM’s strategic position makes internal control even more important, operating as it does in many international situations
and dealing with minerals that must be guaranteed in terms of volume, grade and quality. Accordingly, your board
recognises that internal control underpins investor confidence. Investors have traditionally trusted WM’s management
because they have assumed it capable of managing its internal operations. This has, specifically, meant becoming aware
of and controlling known risks. Risks would not be known about and managed without adequate internal control
systems. Internal control, furthermore, helps to manage quality throughout the organisation and it provides
management with information on internal operations and compliance. These features are important in ensuring quality
at all stages in the WM value chain from the extraction of minerals to the delivery of product to our customers. Linked
to this is the importance of internal control in helping to expose and improve underperforming internal operations.
Finally, internal control systems are essential in providing information for internal and external reporting upon which, in
turn, investor confidence rests.
(ii) Proposals to improve internal systems at WM
As you may be aware, mineral estimation and measurement can be problematic, particularly in some regions. Indeed,
there are several factors that can lead to under or overestimation of reserves valuations as a result of geological survey
techniques and regional cultural/social factors. In the case of mallerite, however, the issues that have been brought to
the board’s attention are matters of internal control and it is to these that I would now like to turn.
In first instance, it is clear from the fact that the overestimate was made that we will need to audit geological reports at
an appropriate (and probably lower) level in the organisation in future.
Once a claim has been made about a given mineral resource level, especially one upon which investor returns might
depend, appropriate systems will be instituted to ask for and obtain evidence that such reserves have been correctly and
accurately quantified.
We will recognise that single and verbal source reports of reserve quantities may not necessarily be accurate. This was
one of the apparent causes of the overestimation of mallerite. A system of auditing actual reserves rather than relying
on verbal evidence will rectify this.
The purchase of any going concern business, such as the mallerite mine, is subject to due diligence. WM will be
examining its procedures in this area to ensure that they are fit for purpose in the way that they may not have been in
respect of the purchase of the mallerite mine. I will be taking all appropriate steps to ensure that all of these internal
control issues can be addressed in future.
Thank you for your continued support of Worldwide Minerals and I hope the foregoing goes some way to reassure you
that the company places the highest value on its investors and their loyalty.
Yours faithfully,
Tim Blake
Chairman

正确答案：
(b) Financial statement risks
Tutorial note: Note the timeframe. Financial statements for the year to 30 June 2006 are draft. Certain misstatements
may therefore exist due to year-end procedures not yet having taken place.
Revenue/(Receivables)
■ Revenue has increased by 11·8% ((161·5 – 144·4)/144·4 × 100). Overstatement could arise if rebates due to customers
have not yet been accounted for in full (as they are calculated in arrears). If rebates have still to be accounted for trade
receivables will be similarly overstated.
Materials expense
■ Materials expense has increased by 17·8% ((88.0 – 74·7)/74·7 × 100). This is more than the increase in revenue. This
could be legitimate (e.g. if fuel costs have increased significantly). However, the increase could indicate misclassification
of:
– revenue expenditure (see fall in other expenses below);
– capital expenditure (e.g. on overhauls or major refurbishment) as revenue;
– finance lease payments as operating lease.
Depreciation/amortisation
■ This has fallen by 10·5% ((8·5 – 9·5)/9·5 × 100). This could be valid (e.g. if Yates has significant assets already fully
depreciated or the asset base is lower since last year’s restructuring). However, there is a risk of understatement if, for
example:
– not all assets have been depreciated (or depreciated at the wrong rates, or only for 11 months of the year);
– cost of non-current assets is understated (e.g. due to failure to recognise capital expenditure)1;
– impairment losses have not been recognised (as compared with the prior year).
Tutorial note: Depreciation on vehicles and transport equipment represents only 7% of cost. If all items were being
depreciated on a straight-line basis over eight years this should be 12·5%. The depreciation on other equipment looks more
reasonable as it amounts to 14% which would be consistent with an average age of vehicles of seven years (i.e. in the middle
of the range 3 – 13 years).
Other expenses
■ These have fallen by 15·5% ((19·6 – 23·2)/23·2 × 100). They may have fallen (e.g. following the restructuring) or may be
understated due to:
– expenses being misclassified as materials expense;
– underestimation of accrued expenses (especially as the financial reporting period has not yet expired).
Intangibles
■ Intangible assets have increased by $1m (16% on the prior year). Although this may only just be material to the
financial statements as a whole (see (a)) this is the net movement, therefore additions could be material.
■ Internally-generated intangibles will be overstated if:
– any of the IAS 38 recognition criteria cannot be demonstrated;
– any impairment in the year has not yet been written off in accordance with IAS 36 ‘Impairment of Assets’.
Tangible assets
■ The net book value of property (at cost) has fallen by 5%, vehicles are virtually unchanged (increased by just 2·5%)
and other equipment (though the least material category) has fallen by 20·4%.
■ Vehicles and equipment may be overstated if:
– disposals have not been recorded;
– depreciation has been undercharged (e.g. not for a whole year);
– impairments have not yet been accounted for.
■ Understatement will arise if finance leases are treated as operating leases.
Receivables
■ Trade receivables have increased by just 2·2% (although sales increased by 11·8%) and may be understated due to a
cutoff error resulting in overstatement of cash receipts.
■ There is a risk of overstatement if sufficient allowances have not been made for the impairment of individually significant
balances and for the remainder assessed on a portfolio or group basis.
Restructuring provision
■ The restructuring provision that was made last year has fallen/been utilised by 10·2%. There is a risk of overstatement
if the provision is underutilised/not needed for the purpose for which it was established.
Finance lease liabilities
■ Although finance lease liabilities have increased (by $1m) there is a greater risk of understatement than overstatement
if leased assets are not recognised on the balance sheet (i.e. capitalised).
■ Disclosure risk arises if the requirements of IAS 17 ‘Leases’ (e.g. in respect of minimum lease payments) are not met.
Trade payables
■ These have increased by only 5·3% compared with the 17·8% increase in materials expense. There is a risk of
understatement as notifications (e.g. suppliers’ invoices) of liabilities outstanding at 30 June 2006 may have still to be
received (the month of June being an unexpired period).
Other (employee) liabilities
■ These may be understated as they have increased by only 7·5% although staff costs have increased by 14%. For
example, balances owing in respect of outstanding holiday entitlements at the year end may not yet be accurately
estimated.
Tutorial note: Credit will be given to other financial statements risks specific to the scenario. For example, ‘time-sensitive
delivery schedules’ might give rise to penalties or claims, that could result in understated provisions or undisclosed
contingent liabilities. Also, given that this is a new audit and the result has changed significantly (from loss to profit) might
suggest a risk of misstatement in the opening balances (and hence comparative information).
1 Tutorial note: This may be unlikely as other expenses have fallen also.