答疑：ACCA年费标准是怎么样的?如何缴纳呢？

发布时间：2020-08-16

ACCA年费标准是怎么样的?如何缴纳呢？小伙伴们都清楚吗？下面51题库考试学习网就带领大家一起来看看，想要了解的小伙伴赶紧来围观吧。

ACCA年费是每个学员、准会员及会员都需要缴纳的一项费用，不过不同会员身份对应的年费标准是不同的，具体的收费标准如下：

学员标准：年费112英镑;

准会员标准：年费129英镑;

会员标准：年费费用为258英镑;

缴纳年费的时间

一般来说，ACCA年费是在每年的年底(前一年的12.31)之前缴纳完成，ACCA会提前给学员发送缴费提醒邮件，大家收到邮件后及时缴纳就可以了，如果账户里面余额足够，会自动扣掉。例如，2021年ACCA年费将在2020年年底进行缴纳。

ACCA学员年费缴纳流程如下：

1、需要登录myACCA账户(需要用到你的ACCA ID账号及密码)

2、登陆成功后进入\'ACCOUNT ADMINISTRATION’找到下方的\'Fees,Payments and Print Receipts’这里就是费用缴纳的入口。

3、在’Annual Subion Fee-Sub Fee’前的方框内打钩，并点击账单上方的’Pay’按钮。

4、确认支付金额并点击Pay按钮进入信用卡在线支付页面。

5、选择您的信用卡类型，完成在线支付即可。

年费缴纳常见问题：

Q：我支付宝/银行卡显示已扣款，但是没有显示支付成功，怎么办?

A：支付宝/银行卡的扣款不一定表示年费已支付成功。实际支付成功以balance：0和pay键同时变为灰色为准。如果没有支付成功，不用着急，费用会在2-15个工作日内原路退回原支付方式。

Q：缴年费过程中，系统经常Bug，导致无法缴纳成功，怎么办?

A：ACCA官方网址近期不是很稳定，请同学们可以分时段(上午/下午/晚上)尝试登陆，成功率会更高。

Q：支付未成功，退费后和原金额不同，为什么?

A：由于支付金额和退回金额都会按当天汇率转化为英镑支付或退回，每天汇率不同，所以实际交易金额会有微调。

忘记交年费会有什么后果？

如果由于各种原因ACCA年费没有在规定时间内缴纳，那么ACCA的头衔会被暂时取消，而且还会被处以一定金额的罚金。这种情况下可以发邮件给官方，补交之前未缴的年费和一定数额的罚金，让官方帮你重新激活你的ACCA头衔。

以上是关于ACCA考试年费缴纳标准及缴费相关内容，相信大家都了解了。如果想要了解更多关于ACCA考试的资讯，敬请关注51题库考试学习网！

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。

(c) mandatory continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. (5 marks)

正确答案：

(c) Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
CPD is defined5 as ‘the continuous maintenance, development and enhancement of the professional and personal knowledge
and skills which members of ACCA require throughout their working lives’.
All professional accountants need to maintain their competence and develop new skills to be effective in their current and
future employment. CPD helps keep accountants in practice employable and maintains their reputation with employers,
clients and the public. It also helps maintain the accounting profession’s reputation for producing and supporting high calibre
individuals. Therefore, CPD is something which professional accountants should take personal responsibility for, and be doing
as part of their everyday work.

Mandatory CPD for active members of IFAC member bodies (such as ACCA) was introduced with effect from 1 January 2005
onwards. ACCA has introduced CPD as a requirement for all active members, subject to the phasing-in dates (and waivers).
Tutorial note: IFAC issued International Education Standard (IES) 7, which requires the introduction of CPD for all active
members of IFAC member bodies.
ACCA practising certificate and insolvency licence holders are still required to participate in technical CPD training. All other
members will also be asked to state on their annual CPD return that they maintain competence in professional ethics.
The scheme is being introduced in phases:
■ phase 1 (2005) – members admitted since 1 January 2001, and all practising certificate and insolvency licence
holders;
■ phase 2 (2006) – members admitted between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2000;
■ phase 3 (2007) – all remaining members.
Tutorial note: However, ACCA encouraged all members to adopt the scheme from 1 January 2005.
Affiliates join the CPD scheme on 1 January following their date of admittance to membership.
There are two routes to participation in ACCA’s CPD scheme:
(1) the unit scheme route (40 units approximate to 40 hours required each year); and
(2) the approved CPD employer route (i.e. where employers are recognised as effectively providing ACCA members with
CPD).
Tutorial note: Alternatively, if an ACCA member is also a member of another IFAC accounting body and that CPD scheme
is compliant with IFAC’s CPD IES 7, they may choose to follow that body’ s route.

(ii) The shares held in Date Inc and the dividend income received from that company. (7 marks)

正确答案：
(ii) Shares held in Date Inc and the related dividend income
Degrouping charge
There will be a degrouping charge in Nikau Ltd in the year ending 31 March 2008 in respect of the shares in Date Inc.
This is because Nikau Ltd has left the Facet Group within six years of the no gain, no loss transfer of the shares whilst
still owning them.
Nikau Ltd is treated as if it has sold the shares in Date Inc for their market value as at the time of the no gain, no loss
transfer. This will give rise to a gain, ignoring indexation allowance, of ￡201,000 (￡338,000 – ￡137,000).
This gain will give rise to additional corporation tax of ￡60,300 (￡201,000 x 30%).
Controlled foreign company
Date Inc is a controlled foreign company. The profits of such a company are normally attributed to its UK resident
shareholders such that they are subject to UK corporation tax.
However, none of the profits of Date Inc will be attributed to Nikau Ltd because Date Inc distributes more than 90%
(￡115,000/￡120,000 = 95·8%) of its chargeable profits to its shareholders.
Dividend income
Nikau Ltd is a UK resident company and is therefore subject to corporation tax on its worldwide income.
The dividend income will be grossed up in respect of the withholding tax giving rise to taxable income of ￡39,792
(￡38,200 x 100/96). There is no underlying tax as there are no taxes on income or capital profits in Palladia.
The corporation tax of ￡11,938 (￡39,792 x 30%) will be reduced by unilateral double tax relief equal to the withholding
tax suffered of ￡1,592 (￡39,792 x 4%) resulting in corporation tax due of ￡10,346 (￡11,938 – ￡1,592).

1 The board of Worldwide Minerals (WM) was meeting for the last monthly meeting before the publication of the yearend

results. There were two points of discussion on the agenda. First was the discussion of the year-end results;

second was the crucial latest minerals reserves report.

WM is a large listed multinational company that deals with natural minerals that are extracted from the ground,

processed and sold to a wide range of industrial and construction companies. In order to maintain a consistent supply

of minerals into its principal markets, an essential part of WM’s business strategy is the seeking out of new sources

and the measurement of known reserves. Investment analysts have often pointed out that WM’s value rests principally

upon the accuracy of its reserve reports as these are the best indicators of future cash flows and earnings. In order to

support this key part of its strategy, WM has a large and well-funded geological survey department which, according

to the company website, contains ‘some of the world’s best geologists and minerals scientists’. In its investor relations

literature, the company claims that:

‘our experts search the earth for mineral reserves and once located, they are carefully measured so that the company

can always report on known reserves. This knowledge underpins market confidence and keeps our customers

supplied with the inventory they need. You can trust our reserve reports – our reputation depends on it!’

At the board meeting, the head of the geological survey department, Ranjana Tyler, reported that there was a problem

with the latest report because one of the major reserve figures had recently been found to be wrong. The mineral in

question, mallerite, was WM’s largest mineral in volume terms and Ranjana explained that the mallerite reserves in

a deep mine in a certain part of the world had been significantly overestimated. She explained that, based on the

interim minerals report, the stock market analysts were expecting WM to announce known mallerite reserves of

4·8 billion tonnes. The actual figure was closer to 2·4 billion tonnes. It was agreed that this difference was sufficient

to affect WM’s market value, despite the otherwise good results for the past year. Vanda Monroe, the finance director,

said that the share price reflects market confidence in future earnings. She said that an announcement of an incorrect

estimation like that for mallerite would cause a reduction in share value. More importantly for WM itself, however, it

could undermine confidence in the geological survey department. All agreed that as this was strategically important

for the company, it was a top priority to deal with this problem.

Ranjana explained how the situation had arisen. The major mallerite mine was in a country new to WM’s operations.

The WM engineer at the mine said it was difficult to deal with some local people because, according to the engineer,

‘they didn’t like to give us bad news’. The engineer explained that when the mine was found to be smaller than

originally thought, he was not told until it was too late to reduce the price paid for the mine. This was embarrassing

and it was agreed that it would affect market confidence in WM if it was made public.

The board discussed the options open to it. The chairman, who was also a qualified accountant, was Tim Blake. He

began by expressing serious concern about the overestimation and then invited the board to express views freely. Gary

Howells, the operations director, said that because disclosing the error to the market would be so damaging, it might

be best to keep it a secret and hope that new reserves can be found in the near future that will make up for the

shortfall. He said that it was unlikely that this concealment would be found out as shareholders trusted WM and they

had many years of good investor relations to draw on. Vanda Monroe, the finance director, reminded the board that

the company was bound to certain standards of truthfulness and transparency by its stock market listing. She pointed

out that they were constrained by codes of governance and ethics by the stock market and that colleagues should be

aware that WM would be in technical breach of these if the incorrect estimation was concealed from investors. Finally,

Martin Chan, the human resources director, said that the error should be disclosed to the investors because he would

not want to be deceived if he were an outside investor in the company. He argued that whatever the governance codes

said and whatever the cost in terms of reputation and market value, WM should admit its error and cope with

whatever consequences arose. The WM board contains three non-executive directors and their views were also

invited.

At the preliminary results presentation some time later, one analyst, Christina Gonzales, who had become aware of

the mallerite problem, asked about internal audit and control systems, and whether they were adequate in such a

reserve-sensitive industry. WM’s chairman, Tim Blake, said that he intended to write a letter to all investors and

analysts in the light of the mallerite problem which he hoped would address some of the issues that Miss Gonzales

had raised.

Required:

(a) Define ‘transparency’ and evaluate its importance as an underlying principle in corporate governance and in

relevant and reliable financial reporting. Your answer should refer to the case as appropriate. (10 marks)

正确答案：
(a) Transparency and its importance at WM
Define transparency
Transparency is one of the underlying principles of corporate governance. As such, it is one of the ‘building blocks’ that
underpin a sound system of governance. In particular, transparency is required in the agency relationship. In terms of
definition, transparency means openness (say, of discussions), clarity, lack of withholding of relevant information unless
necessary and a default position of information provision rather than concealment. This is particularly important in financial
reporting, as this is the primary source of information that investors have for making effective investment decisions.
Evaluation of importance of transparency
There are a number of benefits of transparency. For instance, it is part of gaining trust with investors and state authorities
(e.g. tax people). Transparency provides access for investors and other stakeholders to company information thereby dispelling
suspicion and underpinning market confidence in the company through truthful and fair reporting. It also helps to manage
stakeholder claims and reduces the stresses caused by stakeholders (e.g. trade unions) for whom information provision is
important. Reasons for secrecy/confidentiality include the fact that it may be necessary to keep strategy discussions secret
from competitors. Internal issues may be private to individuals, thus justifying confidentiality. Finally, free (secret or
confidential) discussion often has to take place before an agreed position is announced (cabinet government approach).
Reference to case
At Worldwide Minerals, transparency as a principle is needed to deal with the discussion of concealment. Should a discussion
of possible concealment even be taking place? Truthful, accurate and timely reporting underpins investor confidence in all
capital-funded companies including WM. The issue of the overestimation of the mallerite reserve is clearly a matter of concern
to shareholders and so is an example of where a default assumption of transparency would be appropriate.

3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Keffler Co, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of

plastic products. The draft financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2006 show revenue of $47·4 million

(2005 – $43·9 million), profit before taxation of $2 million (2005 – $2·4 million) and total assets of $33·8 million

(2005 – $25·7 million).

The following issues arising during the final audit have been noted on a schedule of points for your attention:

(a) In April 2005, Keffler bought the right to use a landfill site for a period of 15 years for $1·1 million. Keffler

expects that the amount of waste that it will need to dump will increase annually and that the site will be

completely filled after just ten years. Keffler has charged the following amounts to the income statement for the

year to 31 March 2006:

– $20,000 licence amortisation calculated on a sum-of-digits basis to increase the charge over the useful life

of the site; and

– $100,000 annual provision for restoring the land in 15 years’ time. (9 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 Keffler Co for the year ended

31 March 2006.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

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).

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。

站内搜索
热门标签