ACCA考试机考辽宁省预约流程是怎么样的？

正确答案：

正确答案：
(ii) Several significant financial statement risks are indicated by the press cutting.
Overstatement of property, plant and equipment
Medix Co has constructed a research laboratory which is likely to be impaired at the year end. The local authority has
the power to shut down the facility, and it is clear from the press cutting that this is likely to happen before the year end.
Following IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, the premises should be written down to recoverable amount, and the
impairment loss recognised as an expense. The directors should carry out an impairment review before the year end. If
the premises cannot be used as intended then the recoverable amount (measured using the higher of value in use and
fair value less selling cost) is likely to be less than current carrying value. In this case, assuming the local authority is
successful in shutting down the research laboratory, the recoverable amount is likely to be nil, as the premises have no
value in use, as it will never be used commercially, and has no market value as it is likely to be demolished.
In addition, any tangible assets such as laboratory equipment located at the premises should be tested for impairment
as if the company cannot use the premises then the assets contained within it are likely to have a lower recoverable
amount than carrying value.
Contingency – fines or penalties imposed by local authority
The press cutting indicates that Medix Co has been sued before, and that the local authority may again take legal action
against the company. IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets states that a provision should be
recognised if the company has a probable obligation at the year end which can be measured reliably. If payment is
deemed only possible at the year end, then disclosure of the contingent liability should be made in a note to the financial
statements.
If the local authority commences legal proceedings against Medix Co before the year end of 30 June 2008, then
management should assess the probability of payment. The financial statement risk is not recognising a provision (and
associated expense within the income statement), or not disclosing a contingency.
Demolition costs
The local authority may require Medix Co to demolish the premises. If this demand is made before the year end, Medix
Co should recognise a provision for demolition costs as an unavoidable legal obligation would have been created. The
financial statement risk is that in this situation, Medix Co fails to recognise a provision and associated expense within
the income statement.
Going concern
The above issues could indicate that the company may not continue in operational existence. The potential lack of
disclosure of these issues represents a financial statement risk.

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：
(b) Reward scheme
(i) Matters
■ If the entire year’s revenue ($303m) attracted store points then the cost of the reward scheme in the year is at
most $3·03m. This represents 1% of revenue, which is material to the income statement and very material
(31·9%) to profit before tax (PBT).
■ The proportion of customers who register for loyalty cards and the percentage of revenue (and profit) which they
represent (which may vary from store to store depending on customer profile).
■ In accordance with the assumption of accruals, which underlies the preparation and presentation of financial
statements (The Framework/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’), the expense and liability should be
recognised as revenue is earned. (It is of the nature of a discount.)
■ Any restrictions on the terms for converting points (e.g. whether they expire if not used within a specified time).
■ To the extent that points have been awarded but not redeemed at 31 March 2005, Volcan will have a liability at
the balance sheet date.
■ Agree the total balance due to customers at the year end under the reward scheme to the sum of the points on
individual customer reward cards.
■ The proportion of reward points awarded which are not expected to be claimed (e.g. the ‘take up’ of points awarded
may be only 80%, say).
■ Whether reward points are valued at selling price or cost. For example, if the average gross profit margin is 20%,
one point is equivalent to 0·8 cents of goods at cost.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ New/updated systems documentation explaining how:
– loyalty cards (and numbers) are issued to customers;
– points earned are recorded at the point of sale; and
– points are later redeemed on subsequent purchases.
■ Walk-through tests (e.g. on registering customer applications and issuing loyalty cards, awarding of points on
special offer items).
■ Tests of controls supporting the extent to which audit reliance is placed on the accounting and internal control
system. In particular, how points are extracted from the electronic tills (cash registers) and summarised into the
weekly/monthly financial data for each store which underlies the financial statements.
■ Analytical procedures on the value of points awarded by store per month with explanations of variations (‘variation
analysis’). For example, similar proportions (not exceeding 1% of revenue) of points in each month might be
expected by store – possibly increasing following any promotion of the ‘loyalty’ scheme.
Tutorial note: Within a close community, for example, a high proportion of customers might be expected to sign
up for the reward scheme. However, in big cities, where a large proportion of the customers might be transitory
(e.g. tourists or other visitors) the proportion may be much lower.
■ Tests of detail on a sample of transactions with customers undertaken at store visits. For example, for a sample of
copy till receipts:
– check the arithmetic accuracy of points awarded (1 per $1 spent + special offers);
– agree points awarded for special offers to that week’s special offers;
– for cash discounts taken confirm the conversion of points is against the opening balance of points awarded
(not against purchases just made).