关于2020年ACCA考试几大政策变化

正确答案：
(b) Recoverable input tax in respect of new premises
Vostok Ltd will recover ￡47,880 (￡446,500 x 7/47 x 72%) in the year ending 31 March 2009.
The capital goods scheme will apply to the purchase of the building because it is to cost more than ￡250,000. Under the
scheme, the total amount of input tax recovered reflects the use of the building over the period of ownership, up to a maximum
of ten years, rather than merely the year of purchase.
Further input tax will be recovered in future years as the percentage of exempt supplies falls. (If the percentage of exempt
supplies were to rise, Vostok Ltd would have to repay input tax to HMRC.)
The additional recoverable input tax will be computed by reference to the percentage of taxable supplies in each year including
the year of sale. For example, if the percentage of taxable supplies in a particular subsequent year were to be 80%, the
additional recoverable input tax would be computed as follows.
￡446,500 x 7/47 x 1/10 x (80% – 72%) = ￡532.
Further input tax will be recovered in the year of sale as if Vostok Ltd’s supplies in the remaining years of the ten-year period
are fully vatable. For example, if the building is sold in year seven, the additional recoverable amount for the remaining three
years will be calculated as follows.
￡446,500 x 7/47 x 1/10 x (100% – 72%) x 3 = ￡5,586.

正确答案：
(ii) Disadvantages of an EVA approach to the measurement of financial performance include:
(i) The calculation of EVA may be complicated due to the number of adjustments required.
(ii) It is difficult to use EVA for inter-firm and inter-divisional comparisons because it is not a ratio measure.
(iii) Economic depreciation is difficult to estimate and conflicts with generally accepted accounting principles.
Note: Other relevant discussion would be acceptable.

正确答案：
(c) Examiner’s Note:
The topic of managerial motivation and budgeting has been a subject of discussion for a number of years. There are links
here to the topics of performance measurement and responsibility accounting. Discussion should be focused on the area of
budgets and the budgeting process, as specified in the question.
Setting targets for financial performance
It has been reasonably established that managers respond better in motivation and performance terms to a clearly defined,
quantitative target than to the absence of such targets. However, budget targets must be accepted by the responsible
managers if they are to have any motivational effect. Acceptance of budget targets will depend on several factors, including
the personality of an individual manager and the quality of communication in the budgeting process.
The level of difficulty of the budget target will also influence the level of motivation and performance. Budget targets that are
seen as average or above average will increase motivation and performance up to the point where such targets are seen as
impossible to achieve. Beyond this point, personal desire to achieve a particular level of performance falls off sharply. Careful
thought must therefore go into establishing budget targets, since the best results in motivation and performance terms will
arise from the most difficult goals that individual managers are prepared to accept4.
While budget targets that are seen as too difficult will fail to motivate managers to improve their performance, the same is
true of budget targets that are seen as being too easy. When budget targets are easy, managers are likely to outperform. the
budget but will fail to reach the level of performance that might be expected in the absence of a budget.
One consequence of the need for demanding or difficult budget targets is the frequent reporting of adverse variances. It is
important that these are not used to lay blame in the budgetary control process, since they have a motivational (or planning)
origin rather than an operational origin. Managerial reward systems may need to reward almost achieving, rather than
achieving, budget targets if managers are to be encouraged by receiving financial incentives.
Participation in the budget-setting process
A ‘top-down’ approach to budget setting leads to budgets that are imposed on managers. Where managers within an
organisation are believed to behave in a way that is consistent with McGregor’s Theory X perspective, imposed budgets may
improve performance, since accepting the budget is consistent with reduced responsibility and avoiding work.
It is also possible that acceptance of imposed budgets by managers who are responsible for their implementation and
achievement is diminished because they feel they have not been able to influence budget targets. Such a view is consistent
with McGregor’s Theory Y perspective, which holds that managers naturally seek responsibility and do not need to be tightly
controlled. According to this view, managers respond well to participation in the budget-setting process, since being able to
influence the budget targets for which they will be responsible encourages their acceptance. A participative approach to
budget-setting is also referred to as a ‘bottom-up’ approach.
In practice, many organisations adopt a budget-setting process that contains elements of both approaches, with senior
management providing strategic leadership of the budget-setting process and other management tiers providing input in terms
of identifying what is practical and offering detailed knowledge of their area of the organisation.