看过来！带你了解怎样可以快速拿下ACCA证书！

正确答案：
(b) Implications for the auditor’s report
(i) Corruption of perpetual inventory records
■ The loss of data (of physical inventory quantities at the balance sheet date) gives rise to a limitation on scope.
Tutorial note: It is the records of the asset that have been destroyed – not the physical asset.
■ The systems failure in October 2005 is clearly a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10). If it is material
(such that non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions of users) Jinack should disclose:
– the nature of the event (i.e. systems failure); and
– an estimate of its financial effect (i.e. the cost of disruption and reconstruction of data to the extent that it is
not covered by insurance).
Tutorial note: The event has no financial effect on the realisability of inventory, only on its measurement for the
purpose of reporting it in the financial statements.
■ If material this disclosure could be made in the context of explaining how inventory has been estimated at
30 September 2005 (see later). If such disclosure, that the auditor considers to be necessary, is not made, the
audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement (over lack of disclosure).
Tutorial note: Such qualifications are extremely rare since management should be persuaded to make necessary
disclosure in the notes to the financial statements rather than have users’ attention drawn to the matter through
a qualification of the audit opinion.
■ The limitation on scope of the auditor’s work has been imposed by circumstances. Jinack’s accounting records
(for inventory) are inadequate (non-existent) for the auditor to perform. tests on them.
■ An alternative procedure to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence of inventory quantities at a year end is
subsequent count and ‘rollback’. However, the extent of ‘roll back’ testing is limited as records are still under
reconstruction.
■ The auditor may be able to obtain sufficient evidence that there is no material misstatement through a combination
of procedures:
– testing management’s controls over counting inventory after the balance sheet date and recording inventory
movements (e.g. sales and goods received);
– reperforming the reconstruction for significant items on a sample basis;
– analytical procedures such as a review of profit margins by inventory category.
■ ‘An extensive range of inventory’ is clearly material. The matter (i.e. systems failure) is not however pervasive, as
only inventory is affected.
■ Unless the reconstruction is substantially completed (i.e. inventory items not accounted for are insignificant) the
auditor cannot determine what adjustment, if any, might be determined to be necessary. The auditor’s report
should then be modified, ‘except for’, limitation on scope.
■ However, if sufficient evidence is obtained the auditor’s report should be unmodified.
■ An ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph would not be appropriate because this matter is not one of significant
uncertainty.
Tutorial note: An uncertainty in this context is a matter whose outcome depends on future actions or events not
under the direct control of Jinack.
2006
■ If the 2005 auditor’s report is qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of limitation on scope there are two possibilities for
the inventory figure as at 30 September 2005 determined on completion of the reconstruction exercise:
(1) it is not materially different from the inventory figure reported; or
(2) it is materially different.
■ In (1), with the limitation now removed, the need for qualification is removed and the 2006 auditor’s report would
be unmodified (in respect of this matter).
■ In (2) the opening position should be restated and the comparatives adjusted in accordance with IAS 8 ‘Accounting
Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’. The 2006 auditor’s report would again be unmodified.
Tutorial note: If the error was not corrected in accordance with IAS 8 it would be a different matter and the
auditor’s report would be modified (‘except for’ qualification) disagreement on accounting treatment.

正确答案：

(iii) The effect of the restructuring on the group’s ability to recover its input tax
Prior to the restructuring
Rapier Ltd and Switch Ltd make wholly standard rated supplies and are in a position to recover all of their input tax
other than that which is specifically blocked. Dirk Ltd and Flick Ltd are unable to register for VAT as they do not make
taxable supplies. Accordingly, they cannot recover any of their input tax.
Following the restructuring
Rapier Ltd will be carrying on four separate trades, two of which involve the making of exempt supplies such that it will
be a partially exempt trader. Its recoverable input tax will be calculated as follows.
– Input tax in respect of inputs wholly attributable to taxable supplies is recoverable.
– Input tax in respect of inputs wholly attributable to exempt supplies cannot be recovered (subject to the de minimis
limits below).
– A proportion of the company’s residual input tax, i.e. input tax in respect of inputs which cannot be directly
attributed to particular supplies, is recoverable. The proportion is taxable supplies (VAT exclusive) divided by total
supplies (VAT exclusive). This proportion is rounded up to the nearest whole percentage where total residual input
tax is no more than ￡400,000 per quarter.
The balance of the residual input tax cannot be recovered (subject to the de minimis limits below).
– If the de minimis limits are satisfied, Rapier Ltd will be able to recover all of its input tax (other than that which is
specifically blocked) including that which relates to exempt supplies. The de minimis limits are satisfied where the
irrecoverable input tax:
– is less than or equal to ￡625 per month on average; and
– is less than or equal to 50% of total input tax.
The impact of the restructuring on the group’s ability to recover its input tax will depend on the level of supplies made
by the different businesses and the amounts of input tax involved. The restructuring could result in the group being able
to recover all of its input tax (if the de minimis limits are satisfied). Alternatively the amount of irrecoverable input tax
may be more or less than the amounts which cannot be recovered by Dirk Ltd and Flick Ltd under the existing group
structure.

正确答案：

(b) Benchmarking at Marlow Fashion will not be an easy exercise. Marlow Fashion has developed a distinctive way of reaching
its markets that means direct comparisons will be hard to make. Certainly, it can carry out historical benchmarking in
comparing how its own processes and activities have improved, or otherwise, over a relevant period of time. Unfortunately,
this is likely to simply confirm worsening performance. It can compare its own key operations against the ‘best in class’;
regardless of which industry the excellent performer comes from. It could and should have been carrying out competitive
benchmarking on the retail side of the business where information should be more easily available. There may be an
opportunity to benchmark itself against firms that have gone through a similar crisis and achieved a successful turnaround.

In terms of the advantages and disadvantages, the willingness of managers responsible for a key area of performance to
compare themselves against relevant external performance measures should make them take responsibility for any changes
necessary. In Marlow Fashion, the acceptance that things have to be done differently will be the first stage in the turnaround.
Getting managers face-to-face with the problems, accepting responsibility for change and recognising that the necessary
changes are ‘doable’ is an important stage in creating a willingness to change. The disadvantages are that every organisation
and situation is different and there is no one best way. Marlow Fashion thought it had discovered the best way and this created
an unwillingness to change. There is also the danger that you are solving today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions. A good
competitor will be trying to maintain its competitive advantage through constantly improving its processes. It also has a vested
interest in trying to prevent its improvements from being revealed to its competitors. Also, many of the ‘softer’ processes –
typically involving people – are difficult if not impossible to replicate in another organisation. These advantages are to do with
culture and leadership and not easily transferable to another organisation and the context in which it is operating.