山东省考生：2020年ACCA国际会计师考试时间是如何安排的？

正确答案：
(c) (i) ISQC 1 Quality Control for Firms That Perform. Audits and Reviews of Historical Financial Information and Other
Assurance and Related Services Engagements provides guidance on the overall quality control systems that should be
implemented by an audit firm. ISA 220 Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information specifies the quality
control procedures that should be applied by the engagement team in individual audit assignments.
Procedures include the following:
Client acceptance procedures
There should be full documentation, and conclusion on, ethical and client acceptance issues in each audit assignment.
The engagement partner should consider whether members of the audit team have complied with ethical requirements,
for example, whether all members of the team are independent of the client. Additionally, the engagement partner should
conclude whether all acceptance procedures have been followed, for example, that the audit firm has considered the
integrity of the principal owners and key management of the client. Other procedures on client acceptance should
include:
– Obtaining professional clearance from previous auditors
– Consideration of any conflict of interest
– Money laundering (client identification) procedures.
Engagement team
Procedures should be followed to ensure that the engagement team collectively has the skills, competence and time to
perform. the audit engagement. The engagement partner should assess that the audit team, for example:
– Has the appropriate level of technical knowledge
– Has experience of audit engagements of a similar nature and complexity
– Has the ability to apply professional judgement
– Understands professional standards, and regulatory and legal requirements.
Direction
The engagement team should be directed by the engagement partner. Procedures such as an engagement planning
meeting should be undertaken to ensure that the team understands:
– Their responsibilities
– The objectives of the work they are to perform
– The nature of the client’s business
– Risk related issues
– How to deal with any problems that may arise; and
– The detailed approach to the performance of the audit.
The planning meeting should be led by the partner and should include all people involved with the audit. There should
be a discussion of the key issues identified at the planning stage.
Supervision
Supervision should be continuous during the engagement. Any problems that arise during the audit should be rectified
as soon as possible. Attention should be focused on ensuring that members of the audit team are carrying out their work
in accordance with the planned approach to the engagement. Significant matters should be brought to the attention of
senior members of the audit team. Documentation should be made of key decisions made during the audit engagement.
Review
The review process is one of the key quality control procedures. All work performed must be reviewed by a more senior
member of the audit team. Reviewers should consider for example whether:
– Work has been performed in accordance with professional standards
– The objectives of the procedures performed have been achieved
– Work supports conclusions drawn and is appropriately documented.
The review process itself must be evidenced.
Consultation
Finally the engagement partner should arrange consultation on difficult or contentious matters. This is a procedure
whereby the matter is discussed with a professional outside the engagement team, and sometimes outside the audit
firm. Consultations must be documented to show:
– The issue on which the consultation was sought; and
– The results of the consultation.

正确答案：
(b) Audit work on carrying amounts
Tutorial note: This part concerns audit work to be undertaken in respect of non-current tangible assets (the production
animals in the goat herd and certain equipment) and inventories (the for-sale animals and cheese). One of the ‘tests’ for
assessing whether or not a point is worthy of a mark will be whether or not the asset to which it relates is apparent. Points
which are so vague that they could apply to ANY non-current asset for ANY entity, rather than those of GVF are unlikely to
attract many marks, if any, at this level.
(i) Goat herd
■ Physical inspection of the number and condition of animals in the herd and confirming, on a test basis, that they
are tagged (or otherwise ‘branded’ as being owned by GVF).
■ Tests of controls on management’s system of identifying and distinguishing held-for-sale animals (inventory) from
the production herd (depreciable non-current assets).
■ Comparison of GVF’s depreciation policies (including useful lives, depreciation methods and residual values) with
those used by other farming entities.
■ ‘Proof in total’, or other reasonableness check, of the depreciation charge for the herd for the year.
■ Observing test counts or total counts of animals held for sale.
■ Comparing carrying amounts of the kids, according to their weight and age, as at 30 September 2005 with their
market values. (These may approximate to actual invoiced selling prices obtained by GVF.)
Tutorial note: Market value of the production herd could also be compared with its carrying amount to assess possible
impairment. However, if value in use appears to be less than market value the herd should be sold rather than used
for production.

正确答案：
(b) Tiltman Co
Tiltman’s total assets at 31 March 2006 represent 29% (16·1/55·2 × 100) of Johnston’s total assets. The subsidiary is
therefore material to Johnston’s consolidated financial statements.
Tutorial note: Tiltman’s profit for the year is not relevant as the acquisition took place just before the year end and will
therefore have no impact on the consolidated income statement. Calculations of the effect on consolidated profit before
taxation are therefore inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(i) Inventory overvaluation
This should have been written off to the income statement in the year to 31 March 2005 and not spread over three
years (contrary to IAS 2 ‘Inventories’).
At 31 March 2006 inventory is overvalued by $0·9m. This represents all Tiltmans’s profit for the year and 5·6% of
total assets and is material. At 31 March 2005 inventory was materially overvalued by $1·8m ($1·7m reported profit
should have been a $0·1m loss).
Tutorial note: 1/3 of the overvaluation was written off in the prior period (i.e. year to 31 March 2005) instead of $2·7m.
That the prior period’s auditor’s report was unmodified means that the previous auditor concurred with an incorrect
accounting treatment (or otherwise gave an inappropriate audit opinion).
As the matter is material a prior period adjustment is required (IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’). $1·8m should be written off against opening reserves (i.e. restated as at 1 April 2005).
(ii) Restructuring provision
$2·3m expense has been charged to Tiltman’s profit and loss in arriving at a draft profit of $0·7m. This is very material.
(The provision represents 14·3% of Tiltman’s total assets and is material to the balance sheet date also.)
The provision for redundancies and onerous contracts should not have been made for the year ended 31 March 2006
unless there was a constructive obligation at the balance sheet date (IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’). So, unless the main features of the restructuring plan had been announced to those affected (i.e.
redundancy notifications issued to employees), the provision should be reversed. However, it should then be disclosed
as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’).
Given the short time (less than one month) between acquisition and the balance sheet it is very possible that a
constructive obligation does not arise at the balance sheet date. The relocation in May was only part of a restructuring
(and could be the first evidence that Johnston’s management has started to implement a restructuring plan).
There is a risk that goodwill on consolidation of Tiltman may be overstated in Johnston’s consolidated financial
statements. To avoid the $2·3 expense having a significant effect on post-acquisition profit (which may be negligible
due to the short time between acquisition and year end), Johnston may have recognised it as a liability in the
determination of goodwill on acquisition.
However, the execution of Tiltman’s restructuring plan, though made for the year ended 31 March 2006, was conditional
upon its acquisition by Johnston. It does not therefore represent, immediately before the business combination, a
present obligation of Johnston. Nor is it a contingent liability of Johnston immediately before the combination. Therefore
Johnston cannot recognise a liability for Tiltman’s restructuring plans as part of allocating the cost of the combination
(IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’).
Tiltman’s auditor’s report
The following adjustments are required to the financial statements:
■ restructuring provision, $2·3m, eliminated;
■ adequate disclosure of relocation as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event;
■ current period inventory written down by $0·9m;
■ prior period inventory (and reserves) written down by $1·8m.
Profit for the year to 31 March 2006 should be $3·9m ($0·7 + $0·9 + $2·3).
If all these adjustments are made the auditor’s report should be unmodified. Otherwise, the auditor’s report should be
qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of disagreement. If none of the adjustments are made, the qualification should still be
‘except for’ as the matters are not pervasive.
Johnston’s auditor’s report
If Tiltman’s auditor’s report is unmodified (because the required adjustments are made) the auditor’s report of Johnston
should be similarly unmodified. As Tiltman is wholly-owned by Johnston there should be no problem getting the
adjustments made.
If no adjustments were made in Tiltman’s financial statements, adjustments could be made on consolidation, if
necessary, to avoid modification of the auditor’s report on Johnston’s financial statements.
The effect of these adjustments on Tiltman’s net assets is an increase of $1·4m. Goodwill arising on consolidation (if
any) would be reduced by $1·4m. The reduction in consolidated total assets required ($0·9m + $1·4m) is therefore
the same as the reduction in consolidated total liabilities (i.e. $2·3m). $2·3m is material (4·2% consolidated total
assets). If Tiltman’s financial statements are not adjusted and no adjustments are made on consolidation, the
consolidated financial position (balance sheet) should be qualified ‘except for’. The results of operations (i.e. profit for
the period) should be unqualified (if permitted in the jurisdiction in which Johnston reports).
Adjustment in respect of the inventory valuation may not be required as Johnston should have consolidated inventory
at fair value on acquisition. In this case, consolidated total liabilities should be reduced by $2·3m and goodwill arising
on consolidation (if any) reduced by $2·3m.
Tutorial note: The effect of any possible goodwill impairment has been ignored as the subsidiary has only just been
acquired and the balance sheet date is very close to the date of acquisition.

正确答案：
(iii) Trading losses may not be carried forward where, within a period of three years there is both a change in the ownership
of a company and a major change in the nature or conduct of its trade. The transfer of work from Tay Limited to Trent
Limited is likely to constitute a major change in the nature or conduct of the latter’s trade. As a consequence, any tax
losses at the date of acquisition will be forfeited. Assuming losses were incurred uniformly in 2005, the tax losses at the
date of acquisition were ￡380,000 (300,000 + 2/3 x 120,000)). This is worth ￡114,000 assuming a corporation tax
rate of 30%.
Thus, Tay Limited should not consider transferring any trade to Trent Limited until after the third anniversary of the date
of the change of ownership i.e. not before 1 September 2008. As the trades are similar, there should be little problem
in transferring work from that date onwards.