广东省考生:2020年ACCA国际会计师考试时间是如何安排的?
发布时间:2020-01-10
众所周知,想要获得ACCA证书代价是十分巨大的,不仅仅要花费昂贵的报名费用,而且因为考试科目多的原因还需要大把大把的时间和精力去学习和理解知识点。尤其是对在职人员来说,更是一大挑战者,因此许多考生都因此望尘莫及,目前,ACCA国际会计师注册考试的报名时间和考试时间都依次发布了,51题库考试学习网替大家收集到了今年全部的考试报名时间信息和考试时间信息,希望对大家在了解到考试时间之后,能够合理地科学地备考考试。
首先是2020年ACCA考试报名时间:(建议收藏哦~)
了解完报名时间后,大家可以根据自己的学习能力和时间因素等情况依次可以开始备考了哟(学习能力强的考生可以优先从真题开始做起)
接下来,在认真复习、科学备考的同时,千万不要忘记了考试时间,所以这份是2020年ACCA考试时间表建议大家保存在相册里:
险夷原不滞胸中,何异浮云过太空!以上消息希望对正在准备备战3月份的ACCAer们有所帮助,51题库考试学习网预祝大家考试成功!
下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。
21 Which of the following statements about contingent assets and contingent liabilities are correct?
1 A contingent asset should be disclosed by note if an inflow of economic benefits is probable.
2 A contingent liability should be disclosed by note if it is probable that a transfer of economic benefits to settle it
will be required, with no provision being made.
3 No disclosure is required for a contingent liability if it is not probable that a transfer of economic benefits to settle
it will be required.
4 No disclosure is required for either a contingent liability or a contingent asset if the likelihood of a payment or
receipt is remote.
A 1 and 4 only
B 2 and 3 only
C 2, 3 and 4
D 1, 2 and 4
(c) In October 2004, Volcan commenced the development of a site in a valley of ‘outstanding natural beauty’ on
which to build a retail ‘megastore’ and warehouse in late 2005. Local government planning permission for the
development, which was received in April 2005, requires that three 100-year-old trees within the valley be
preserved and the surrounding valley be restored in 2006. Additions to property, plant and equipment during
the year include $4·4 million for the estimated cost of site restoration. This estimate includes a provision of
$0·4 million for the relocation of the 100-year-old trees.
In March 2005 the trees were chopped down to make way for a car park. A fine of $20,000 per tree was paid
to the local government in May 2005. (7 marks)
Required:
For each of the above issues:
(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and
(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,
in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Volcan for the year ended
31 March 2005.
NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.
(c) Site restoration
(i) Matters
■ The provision for site restoration represents nearly 2·5% of total assets and is therefore material if it is not
warranted.
■ The estimated cost of restoring the site is a cost directly attributable to the initial measurement of the tangible fixed
asset to the extent that it is recognised as a provision under IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’ (IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’).
■ A provision should not be recognised for site restoration unless it meets the definition of a liability, i.e:
– a present obligation;
– arising from past events;
– the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits.
■ The provision is overstated by nearly $0·34m since Volcan is not obliged to relocate the trees and de facto has
only an obligation of $60,000 as at 31 March 2005 (being the penalty for having felled them). When considered
in isolation, this overstatement is immaterial (representing only 0·2% of total assets and 3·6% of PBT).
■ It seems that even if there are local government regulations calling for site restoration there is no obligation unless
the penalties for non-compliance are prohibitive (unlike the fines for the trees).
■ It is unlikely that commencement of site development has given rise to a constructive obligation, since past actions
(disregarding the preservation of the trees) must dispel any expectation that Volcan will honour any pledge to
restore the valley.
■ Whether commencing development of the site, and destroying the trees, conflicts with any statement of socioenvironmental
responsibility in the annual report.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A copy of the planning application and permission granted setting out the penalties for non-compliance.
■ Payment of $60,000 to local government in May 2005 agreed to the bank statement.
■ The present value calculation of the future cash expenditure making up the $4·0m provision.
Tutorial note: Evidence supporting the calculation of $0·4m is irrelevant as there is no liability to be provided for.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (as
for (a)).
■ Asset inspection at the site as at 31 March 2005.
■ Any contracts entered into which might confirm or dispute management’s intentions to restore the site. For
example, whether plant hire (bulldozers, etc) covers only the period over which the warehouse will be constructed
– or whether it extends to the period in which the valley would be ‘made good’.
Is the following statement true or false?
A significant change in the ownership of an existing audit client is a factor which makes it appropriate for the auditor to review the terms of engagement.
A.True
B.False
Where there is a significant change in ownership of the company, ISA 210 Agreeing the Terms of Audit Engagements recommends that a new audit engagement letter is sent to avoid misunderstandings.
声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。
- 2020-04-03
- 2020-05-15
- 2020-07-15
- 2021-05-14
- 2020-01-08
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-02-26
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-03-06
- 2021-05-08
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-04-15
- 2020-03-10
- 2020-03-05
- 2020-01-08
- 2020-03-07
- 2020-03-04
- 2019-12-28
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-03-20
- 2020-03-04
- 2019-07-21
- 2020-04-28
- 2020-03-14
- 2020-01-10
- 2020-01-09
- 2021-05-12
- 2020-04-03
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-07-15