看过来：2020年12月ACCA考试时间安排

正确答案：
(a) (i) The transfer price of ￡750 proposed by the IT division is based on cost plus 150% from which it can be deduced that
the total cost of a consulting day is (100/250) x ￡750 = ￡300. This comprises ￡240 (80%) variable cost and ￡60
(20%) fixed cost. In this instance the transfer price should be set at marginal costs plus opportunity cost. It is assumed
in this situation that transferring internally would result in the IT division having a lost contribution of ￡750 – ￡240 =
￡510 per consulting day. The marginal cost of the transfer of services to the HR division is ￡190 (￡240 external variable
costs less ￡50 saving due to use of internal video-conferencing equipment). Adding the opportunity cost of ￡510 gives
a transfer price of ￡700 per consulting day. This is equivalent to using market price as a basis for transfer pricing where
the transfer price is set at the external market price (￡750) less any costs avoided (￡50) by transferring internally.
(ii) There is in effect no external market available for one of the required pairs of consultants within the IT division and
therefore opportunity cost will not apply and transfers should be made at the variable cost per consulting day of ￡190.
The other pair of consultants, who would otherwise be 100% utilised in providing consulting services to external clients,
should be charged at a rate of ￡700 per day which represents marginal cost plus opportunity cost.
(iii) The lost contribution from the major client amounts to ￡264,000/(2 x 240) = ￡550 less variable costs of ￡240 =
￡310 per consulting day. Thus, in this instance the transfer price should be the contribution foregone of ￡310 plus
internal variable costs of ￡190 making a total of ￡500 per consulting day.

正确答案：

正确答案：
2 IFRS3 (Revised) is a further development of the acquisition model and represents a significant change in accounting for business
combinations. The consideration is the amount paid for the business acquired and is measured at fair value. Consideration will
include cash, assets, contingent consideration, equity instruments, options and warrants. It also includes the fair value of all equity
interests that the acquirer may have held previously in the acquired business. The principles to be applied are that:
(a) a business combination occurs only in respect of the transaction that gives one entity control of another
(b) the identifiable net assets of the acquiree are re-measured to their fair value on the date of the acquisition
(c) NCI are measured on the date of acquisition under one of the two options permitted by IFRS3 (Revised).
An equity interest previously held in the acquiree which qualified as an associate under IAS28 is similarly treated as if it were
disposed of and reacquired at fair value on the acquisition date. Accordingly, it is re-measured to its acquisition date fair value, and
any resulting gain or loss compared to its carrying amount under IAS28 is recognised in profit or loss. Thus the 30% holding in
the associate which was previously held will be included in the consideration. If the carrying amount of the interest in the associate
is not held at fair value at the acquisition date, the interest should be measured to fair value and the resulting gain or loss should
be recognised in profit or loss. The business combination has effectively been achieved in stages.
The fees payable in transaction costs are not deemed to be part of the consideration paid to the seller of the shares. They are not
assets of the purchased business that are recognised on acquisition. Therefore, they should be expensed as incurred and the
services received. Transaction costs relating to the issue of debt or equity, if they are directly attributable, will not be expensed but
deducted from debt or equity on initial recognition.
It is common for part of the consideration to be contingent upon future events. Marrgrett wishes some of the existing
shareholders/employees to remain in the business and has, therefore, offered share options as an incentive to these persons. The
issue is whether these options form. part of the purchase consideration or are compensation for post-acquisition services. The
conditions attached to the award will determine the accounting treatment. In this case there are employment conditions and,
therefore, the options should be treated as compensation and valued under IFRS2 ‘Share based payment’. Thus a charge will
appear in post-acquisition earnings for employee services as the options were awarded to reward future services of employees
rather than to acquire the business.
The additional shares to a fixed value of $50,000 are contingent upon the future returns on capital employed. Marrgrett only wants
to make additional payments if the business is successful. All consideration should be fair valued at the date of acquisition,
including the above contingent consideration. The contingent consideration payable in shares where the number of shares varies
to give the recipient a fixed value ($50,000) meets the definition of a financial liability under IAS32 ‘Financial Instruments:
Presentation’. As a result the liability will have to be fair valued and any subsequent remeasurement will be recognised in the
income statement. There is no requirement under IFRS3 (Revised) for the payments to be probable.
Intangible assets should be recognised on acquisition under IFRS3 (Revised). These include trade names, domain names, and
non-competition agreements. Thus these assets will be recognised and goodwill effectively reduced. The additional clarity in
IFRS3 (Revised) could mean that more intangible assets will be recognised on acquisition. As a result of this, the post-combination
income statement may have more charges for amortisation of the intangibles than was previously the case.
The revised standard gives entities the option, on a transaction by transaction basis, to measure non-controlling interests (NCI) at
the fair value of the proportion of identifiable net assets or at full fair value. The first option results in measurement of goodwill on
consolidation which would normally be little different from the previous standard. The second approach records goodwill on the
NCI as well as on the acquired controlling interest. Goodwill is the residual but may differ from that under the previous standard
because of the nature of the valuation of the consideration as previously held interests are fair valued and also because goodwill
can be measured in the above two ways (full goodwill and partial goodwill). The standard gives entities a choice for each separate
business combination of recognising full or partial goodwill. Recognising full goodwill will increase reported net assets and may
result in any future impairment of goodwill being of greater value. Measuring NCI at fair value may have some difficulties but
goodwill impairment testing may be easier under full goodwill as there is no need to gross-up goodwill for partly-owned
subsidiaries. The type of consideration does not affect goodwill regardless of how the payment is structured. Consideration is
recognised in total at its fair value at the date of acquisition. The form. of the consideration will not affect goodwill but the structure
of the payments can affect post-acquisition profits. Contingent payments which are deemed to be debt instruments will be
remeasured at each reporting date with the change going to the income statement.
Marrgrett has a maximum period of 12 months to finalise the acquisition accounting but will not be able to recognise the
re-organisation provision at the date of the business combination. The ability of the acquirer to recognise a liability for reducing or
changing the activities of the acquiree is restricted. A restructuring provision can only be recognised in a business combination
when the acquiree has at the acquisition date, an existing liability which complies with IAS37 ‘Provisions, contingent liabilities and
contingent assets’. These conditions are unlikely to exist at the acquisition date. A restructuring plan that is conditional on the
completion of a business combination is not recognised in accounting for the acquisition but the expense will be met against
post-acquisition earnings.
IAS27 (Revised) uses the economic entity model whereas previous practice used the parent company approach. The economic
entity model treats all providers of equity capital as shareholders of the entity even where they are not shareholders in the parent.
A partial disposal of an interest in a subsidiary in which control is still retained is seen as a treasury transaction and accounted for
in equity. It does not result in a gain or loss but an increase or decrease in equity. However, where a partial disposal in a subsidiary
results in a loss of control but the retention of an interest in the form. of an associate, then a gain or loss is recognised in the whole
interest. A gain or loss is recognised on the portion that has been sold, and a holding gain or loss is recognised on the interest
retained being the difference between the book value and fair value of the interest. Both gains/losses are recognised in the income
statement.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Materiality
The net book value of capitalised development costs represent 7% of total assets in 2007 (2006 – 7·7%), and is
therefore material. The net book value has increased by 13%, a significant trend.
The costs capitalised during the year amount to $750,000. If it was found that the development cost had been
inappropriately capitalised, the cost should instead have been expensed. This would reduce profit before tax by
$750,000, representing 42% of the year’s profit. This is highly material. It is therefore essential to gather sufficient
evidence to support the assertion that development costs should be recognised as an asset.
In 2007, $750,000 capitalised development costs have been incurred, when added to $160,000 research costs
expensed, total research and development costs are $910,000 which represents 20·2% of total revenue, again
indicating a high level of materiality for this class of transaction.
Relevant accounting standard
Development costs should only be capitalised as an intangible asset if the recognition criteria of IAS 38 Intangible Assets
have been demonstrated in full:
– Intention to complete the intangible asset and use or sell it
– Technical feasibility and ability to use or sell
– Ability to generate future economic benefit
– Availability of technical, financial and other resources to complete
– Ability to measure the expenditure attributable to the intangible asset.
Research costs must be expensed, as should development costs which do not comply with the above criteria. The
auditors must consider how Sci-Tech Co differentiates between research and development costs.
There is risk that not all of the criteria have been demonstrated, especially due to the subjective nature of the
development itself:
– Pharmaceutical development is highly regulated. If the government does not license the product then the product
cannot be sold, and economic benefits will therefore not be received.
– Market research should justify the commercial viability of the product. The launch of a rival product to Flortex
means that market share is likely to be much lower than anticipated, and the ability to sell Flortex is reduced. This
could mean that Flortex will not generate an overall economic benefit if future sales will not recover the research
and development costs already suffered, and yet to be suffered, prior to launch. The existence of the rival product
could indicate that Flortex is no longer commercially viable, in which case the capitalised development costs
relating to Flortex should be immediately expensed.
– The funding on which development is dependent may be withdrawn, indicating that there are not adequate
resources to complete the development of the products. Sci-Tech has failed to meet one of its required key
performance indicators (KPI) in the year ended 30 November 2007, as products valued at 0·8% revenue have
been donated to charity, whereas the required KPI is 1% revenue.
Given that there is currently a breach of the target KPIs, this is likely to result in funding equivalent to 25% of
research and development expenditure being withdrawn. If Sci-Tech Co is unable to source alternative means of
finance, then it would seem that adequate resources may not be available to complete the development of new
products.