2020年ACCA考试F1-P1-P3科目特点及备考建议

正确答案：
(b) One approach that the directors of Moffat Ltd could adopt would be to ignore the qualitative benefits that may arise on the
basis that there is too much subjectivity involved in their assessment. The problem that this causes is that the investment will
probably look unattractive since all costs will be included in the evaluation whereas significant benefits and savings will have
been ignored. Hence such an approach is lacking in substance and is not recommended.
An alternative approach would involve attempting to attribute values to each of the identified benefits that are qualitative in
nature. Such an approach will necessitate the use of management estimates in order to derive the cash flows to be
incorporated in a cost benefit analysis. The problems inherent in this approach include gaining consensus among interested
parties regarding the footing of the assumptions from which estimated cash flows have been derived. Furthermore, if the
proposed investment does take place then it may well be impossible to prove that the claimed benefits of the new system
have actually been realised.
Perhaps the preferred approach is to acknowledge the existence of qualitative benefits and attempt to assess them in a
reasonable manner acceptable to all parties including the company’s bank. The financial evaluation would then not only
incorporate ‘hard’ facts relating to costs and benefits that are quantitative in nature, but also would include details of
qualitative benefits which management consider exist but have not attempted to assess in financial terms. Such benefits might
include, for example, the average time saved by location managers in analysing information during each operating period.
Alternatively the management of Moffat Ltd could attempt to express qualitative benefits in specific terms linked to a hierarchy
of organisational requirements. For example, qualitative benefits could be categorised as being:
(1) Essential to the business
(2) Very useful attributes
(3) Desirable, but not essential
(4) Possible, if funding is available
(5) Doubtful and difficult to justify.

正确答案：
(a) (i) Describe rules-based
In a rules-based jurisdiction, corporate governance provisions are legally binding and enforceable in law.
Non-compliance is punishable by fines or ultimately (in extremis) by delisting and director prosecutions.
There is limited latitude for interpretation of the provisions to match individual circumstances (‘one size fits all’). Some
have described this as a ‘box ticking’ exercise as companies seek to comply despite some provisions applying to their
individual circumstances more than others.
Investor confidence is underpinned by the quality of the legislation rather than the degree of compliance (which will be
total for the most part).

正确答案：
(a) Principal audit risks
Industry
‘Farming’ is an inherently risky business activity – being subject to conditions (e.g. disease, weather) outside management’s
control. In some jurisdictions, where the industry is highly regulated, compliance risk may be high.
The risks of mail order retailing ‘exclusive’ products are higher (than for ‘essential’ products, say) as demand fluctuations are
more dramatic (e.g. in times of recession). However, the Internet has provided GVF with a global customer base.
The planned audit approach should be risk-based combined with a systems approach to (say) controls in the revenue cycle.
Goat herd
The goat herd will consist of:
■ mature goats held for use in the production of milk and kids which are held for replacement purposes (i.e. of the nature
of non-current tangible assets); and
■ kids which are to be sold (i.e. of the nature of inventory).
Tutorial note: IAS 41 is not an examinable document at 2.5 and candidates are not expected to be familiar with its
requirements. However, those candidates showing an awareness that biological assets are excluded from the scope of
IAS 16 because they are covered by IAS 41 and answered accordingly were not penalised but awarded equivalent marks.
Therefore, the number of animals in each category must be accurately ascertained to determine:
■ the balance sheet carrying amounts analysed between current and non-current assets; and
■ the charge to the income statement (e.g. for depreciation (IAS 16) and fair value adjustments (IAS 41)).
There is a risk that the carrying amount of the production animals will be misstated if, for example:
■ useful lives/depreciation rates are unreasonable;
■ estimates of residual values are not kept under review;
■ they are impaired.
Tutorial note: Under IAS 41 animals raised during the year should be recognised initially and at each balance sheet date
at fair value less estimated point-of-sale costs. There is therefore a risk of misstatement if fair value cannot be measured
reliabiy (e.g. if market-determined prices are not available). However, this seems unlikely.
Kids will be understated in the balance sheet if they are not recorded on birth (i.e. their existence needs to be recorded in
order that a value be assigned to them).
The net realisable value of animals held for sale may fall below cost if they are not sold soon after reaching optimal size and
weight.
The cost of goats is likely to be subjective. For example, the cost of producing a mature goat from a kid might include direct
costs (e.g. vetinary bills and cost of feed) and attributable overheads (e.g. sheltering). Care must be taken not to carry the
goat herd at more than the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell (IAS 36 Revised).
Unrecorded revenue
Raised (bred) animals are not purchased and, in the absence of documentation supporting their origination, could be sold for
cash (and the revenue unrecorded).
Although the controls over retailing around the world are likely to be strong, there are other sources of income – the shop and
other activities at the farm. Although revenue from these sundry sources may not be material, there is a risk that it could go
unrecorded due to lack of effective controls.
‘Rabida Red’
The cost of an ingredient which is essential to the manufacturing process has increased significantly. If the cost is passed on
to the customers, demand may fall (increasing going concern risk).
Supplies of the ingredient, Innittu, may be restricted – further increasing going concern risk.
Any disclosure of GVF’s socio-environmental policies (e.g. in other information presented with the audited financial
statements), if any, should be scrutinised to ensure that it does not mislead the reader and/or undermine the credibility of the
financial statements.
‘Bachas Blue’
If ‘Bachas Blue’ has been specifically cited as a cause of a skin disorder then GVF could face contingent liabilities for pending
litigation. However, it is more likely that the fall in demand has threatened GVF’s going concern. As the fall in demand has
not been permanent, this threat has been removed for the time being.
The impairment loss previously recognised in respect of the equipment used exclusively in the manufacture of Bachas Blue
should be reversed if there has been a change in the estimates used to determine their recoverable amount (IAS 36
‘Impairment of Assets’).
The recoverable amount would have been based on value in use (since net selling price would not have been applicable).
GVF’s management will have to provide evidence to support their best estimates of future cash flows for the recalculation of
value in use at 30 September 2005.
Maturing cheese
The substance of the sale and repurchase of cheese is that of a loan secured on the inventory. Therefore revenue should not
be recognised on ‘sale’ to Abingdon Bank. The principal terms of the secured borrowings should be disclosed, including the
carrying amount of the inventory to which it applies.
Borrowing costs should all be recognised as an expense in the period unless it is GVF’s policy to capitalise them (the allowed
alternative treatment under IAS 23 ‘Borrowing Costs’). Since the cost of inventories should include all costs incurred in
bringing them to their present location and condition (of maturity), the cost of maturing cheese should include interest at 7%
per six months (as clearly the borrowings are specific). There is a risk that, if the age of maturing cheeses is not accurately
determined, the cost of cheese will be misstated.
Health and safety legislation
At 30 September 2005 the legislation will have been in effect for three months. If GVF’s management has not replaced the
shelves, a provision should be made for the penalties/fines accruing from non-compliance.
If the legislation is complied with:
■ plant and equipment may be overstated e.g:
– if the replaced shelves are not written off;
– if the value of equipment, etc is impaired because the maturing cheese business is to be downsized;
■ inventory may be overstated (e.g. if insufficient allowance is made for the deterioration in maturing cheese resulting from
handling it to replace the shelves);
■ GVF may no longer be a going concern if it does not have the produce to sell to its exclusive customers.
Grant
There is a risk that the grant received has become repayable. For example, if the terms of the grant specified a timeframe. for
the development which is now to be exceeded. In this case the grant should be presented as a payable in the balance sheet.
If the reason for deferring the implementation is related to cash flow problems, this could have implications for the going
concern of GVF.