ACCA机考必备物品清单，快来看看！

正确答案：
(ii) Apart from the fact that Alasdair can keep an eye on his tenant, the main advantages are twofold:
IHT: If the firm are the tenants, the property will be land and buildings used in a business carried on by a partnership
in which the donor is a partner. Thus, Alasdair will be able to claim business property relief (BPR) at a rate of 50%
so long as he remains a partner in the firm. However, this relief would not be available until Alasdair has owned
the property for at least two years from his firm taking up the tenancy.
CGT: As Alasdair is a partner in the firm using the building, it will also be a qualifying asset for the purposes of rollover
relief on any gains arising from the disposal of the property. Assuming that Alasdair acquires a replacement asset
which will be used in the trade, the gain on sale can be deferred against the tax base cost of the replacement asset.
In the event that rollover relief cannot be used, any gains on disposal will be subject to business asset taper relief.

正确答案：
(c) Briefing notes
To: Audit partner
From: Audit manager
Subject: Issues to consider regarding appointment as auditor of Medix Co
Introduction
Medix Co has recently invited our firm to become appointed as auditor. These briefing notes summarise the main issues we
should consider in deciding whether to take the appointment a stage further. My comments are based on a discussion held
with Ricardo Feller, finance director of Medix Co, a discussion with the current audit partner, and information provided in the
local newspaper.
Legal actions and investigations
There are several indications that Medix Co has a history of non compliance with law and regulations. The former finance
director is claiming unfair dismissal, and in the past the local authority has successfully taken legal action against the
company and has a current case pending. In addition, there have been two tax investigations in recent years hinting at noncompliance
with relevant tax regulations.
There are two problems for us in taking on a client with a propensity for legal actions and investigations. Firstly, the reputation
of the company must be considered. If we become associated with the company through being appointed as auditor, we could
be ‘tarred with the same brush’ and our own reputation also tarnished.
Secondly, we could become quickly exposed to an advocacy independence threat, which clearly should be avoided. Our
ethical status should not be compromised for the sake of gaining a new audit client. Mick Evans only ‘believes’ that the tax
matter has been resolved by the directors, and we should avoid taking on a new client which is involved in an on-going
investigation.
Public interest
The problems noted above are compounded by the bad publicity which the company is currently receiving. The local press
contained a recent article discussing Medix Co’s past and current breach of planning regulations. Given the current level of
public interest in environmental issues, and emphasis on corporate responsibility, it would seem that Medix Co has a poor
public perception, which we would not want to be associated with.
Potential liability to lender
The company is currently negotiating a significant bank loan, and the lender will be using the audited financial statements to
make a decision on whether to advance a loan, and the terms of any finance that might be advanced to Medix Co. This means
that our audit opinion for the forthcoming year end will be scrutinised by the lender, and our firm is exposed to a relatively
high risk of liability to a third party. Given that this will be our first audit, and the limited time we have available (discussed
below) our firm may feel that the risk of this audit engagement is too high. Should the appointment be accepted, disclaimers
should be put in place to ensure that we could not be sued in the event of the bank suffering a financial loss as a result of
their lending decision.
Timeframe. and resources
It is currently the last month of the financial year. If we are appointed as auditor we need to work quickly to develop a thorough
understanding of the business, and to begin to plan the assignment. We need to consider whether our firm has sufficient
resources to put together an audit team so quickly without detracting from other client work currently being conducted.
To make this matter worse, Mick Evans states that Medix Co likes ‘a quick audit’, and we need to consider how to manage
this expectation, as first year audit procedures such as systems documentation, and developing business understanding tend
to take a long time. We must be careful that the client does not pressure us into a ‘quick audit’, which could compromise
quality.
Medix Co operates in a reasonably specialist and highly regulated industry, so our firm should take care to ensure we have
expertise in this industry.
Potentially aggressive management style
There are several indicators that the management may take a confrontational approach, such as the unfair dismissal claim
brought against the company by the ex-finance director. In addition, the auditors prior to Mick Evans resigned following a
disagreement with management. This history shows that we may find it difficult to establish a good working relationship with
the management. As the company is owner managed the presence of a dominant managing director exacerbates this problem.
Management bias
There is incentive for the financial statements to be manipulated in order to secure bank finance. There is considerable risk
of material misstatement which our firm may consider to be unacceptably high.
Internal systems and controls
The current auditors have found systems and controls to be poor, and management has not acted upon recommendations
made by the auditors. Of course this does not mean that we should not take on the assignment – many companies have
weak controls. However, if we did take on the appointment, we would not be able to rely on controls or use a controls based
approach for the audit. We would need to take a substantive approach to the audit. One practical issue here is availability of
staff to conduct the audit testing, as substantive procedures tend to be more time consuming than if we could have taken a
systems based approach.
Opening balances
In all new audit assignments, work must be conducted to verify the opening balances. Given the possible fraud and poor
controls described above, we would need to perform. detailed testing on the opening balances as there is a high risk of fraud
and/or error in previous accounting periods. We may also wish to consider the competence of the previous auditors, who
appeared to disregard potential fraud indicator (two cash books) and had only one audit client.
Fees
Mick Evans has made it clear that Medix Co’s management likes to keep a tight control on costs, and it may put pressure on
us to charge a low audit fee. We need to bear in mind the risks associated with this engagement, as discussed above, and
only take on this high risk audit if the audit fee is high enough to compensate.
We should also consider the cash flow problems being experienced by the company. As a business we need to ensure that
we only take on clients with a good credit rating, and it seems that Medix Co, operating with an overdraft, may not be able
to pay our invoices.
Indication of fraud or money laundering
Surely the most serious issue to consider is that Jon Tate, the managing director, has kept two cash books. We need further
detail on this, but it clearly could indicate a fraud being perpetrated at the highest level of management. The fact that he has
maintained two cash books could indicate money laundering activites taking place, especially when considered in the context
of an owner-managed business with overseas operations. If this were the ONLY problem discovered it could be deemed
serious enough to bring to an end our appointment process. It would be reckless for our firm to take on a client where the
managing director is a fraudster.
Conclusion
Further information is needed in many areas before a final decision is made. However, from the information we have gathered
so far, it appears that Medix Co would represent a high risk client, and our firm must therefore be very careful to assess each
problem noted above before deciding whether to proceed with the appointment.

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).

正确答案：
(b) Outsourced cold storage
(i) Matters
■ Inventory at 31 March 2007 represents 21% of total assets (10·1/48·0) and is therefore a very material item in the
balance sheet.
■ The value of inventory has increased by 50% though revenue has increased by only 7·5%. Inventory may be
overvalued if no allowance has been made for slow-moving/perished items in accordance with IAS 2 Inventories.
■ Inventory turnover has fallen to 6·6 times per annum (2006 – 9·3 times). This may indicate a build up of
unsaleable items.
Tutorial note: In the absence of cost of sales information, this is calculated on revenue. It may also be expressed
as the number of days sales in inventory, having increased from 39 to 55 days.
■ Inability to inspect inventory may amount to a limitation in scope if the auditor cannot obtain sufficient audit
evidence regarding quantity and its condition. This would result in an ‘except for’ opinion.
■ Although Hogg’s monthly return provides third party documentary evidence concerning the quantity of inventory it
does not provide sufficient evidence with regard to its valuation. Inventory will need to be written down if, for
example, it was contaminated by the leakage (before being moved to Hogg’s cold storage) or defrosted during
transfer.
■ Lamont’s written representation does not provide sufficient evidence regarding the valuation of inventory as
presumably Lamont’s management did not have access to physically inspect it either. If this is the case this may
call into question the value of any other representations made by management.
■ Whether, since the balance sheet date, inventory has been moved back from Hogg’s cold storage to Lamont’s
refrigeration units. If so, a physical inspection and roll-back of the most significant fish lines should have been
undertaken.
Tutorial note: Credit will be awarded for other relevant accounting issues. For example a candidate may question
whether, for example, cold storage costs have been capitalised into the cost of inventory. Or whether inventory moves
on a FIFO basis in deep storage (rather than LIFO).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A copy of the health and safety regulation preventing the auditor from gaining access to Hogg’s cold storage to
inspect Lamont’s inventory.
■ Analysis of Hogg’s monthly returns and agreement of significant movements to purchase/sales invoices.
■ Analytical procedures such as month-on-month comparison of gross profit percentage and inventory turnover to
identify any trend that may account for the increase in inventory valuation (e.g. if Lamont has purchased
replacement inventory but spoiled items have not been written off).
■ Physical inspection of any inventory in Lamont’s refrigeration units after the balance sheet date to confirm its
condition.
■ An aged-inventory analysis and recalculation of any allowance for slow-moving items.
■ A review of after-date sales invoices for large quantities of fish to confirm that fair value (less costs to sell) exceed
carrying amount.
■ A review of after-date credit notes for any returns of contaminated/perished or otherwise substandard fish.