重磅消息：听说黑龙江ACCA考试有免考？你得有这些条件哦

正确答案：
(ii) Audit procedures on the consolidation schedule of the Rosie Group:
– Agree correct extraction of individual company figures by reference to individual company audited financial
statements.
– Cast and cross cast all consolidation schedules.
– Recalculate all consolidation adjustments, including goodwill, elimination of pre acquisition reserves, cancellation
of intercompany balances, fair value adjustments and accounting policy adjustments.
– By reference to prior year audited consolidated accounts, agree accounting policies have been consistently applied.
– Agree brought down figures to prior year audited consolidated accounts and audit working papers (e.g. goodwill
figures for Timber Co and Ben Co, consolidated reserves).
– Agree that any post acquisition profits consolidated for Dylan Co arose since the date of acquisition by reference to
date of control passing per the purchase agreement.
– Reconcile opening and closing group reserves and agree reconciling items to group financial statements.

正确答案：
(c) (i) Relocation costs
Direct assistance
Messier Ltd can bear the cost of certain qualifying relocation costs of Galileo up to a maximum of ￡8,000 without
increasing his UK income tax liability. Qualifying costs include the legal, professional and other fees in relation to the
purchase of a house, the costs of travelling to the UK and the cost of transporting his belongings. The costs must be
incurred before the end of the tax year following the year of the relocation, i.e. by 5 April 2010.
Assistance in the form. of a loan
Messier Ltd can provide Galileo with an interest-free loan of up to ￡5,000 without giving rise to any UK income tax.

正确答案：
(a) Defining and explaining agency
Agency is defined in relation to a principal. A principal appoints an agent to act on his or her behalf. In the case of corporate
governance, the principal is a shareholder in a joint stock company and the agents (that have an agency relationship with
principals) are the directors. The directors remain accountable to the principals for the stewardship of their investment in the
company. In the case of Rosh, 60% of the shares are owned by shareholders external to the Rosh family and the board has
agency responsibility to those shareholders.
Criticisms of Rosh’s CG arrangements
The corporate governance arrangements at Rosh and Company are far from ideal. Five points can be made based on the
evidence in the case.
There are several issues associated with the non-executive directors (NEDs) at Rosh. It is doubtful whether two NEDs are
enough to bring sufficient scrutiny to the executive board. Some corporate governance codes require half of the board of larger
companies to be non-executive and Rosh would clearly be in breach of such a requirement. Perhaps of equal concern, there
is significant doubt over the independence of the current NEDs as they were recruited from retired executive members of the
board and presumably have relationships with existing executives going back many years. Some corporate governance codes
(such as the UK Combined Code) specify that NEDs should not have worked for the company within the last five years. Again,
Rosh would be in breach of this provision.
Succession planning for senior positions in the company seems to be based on Rosh family membership rather than any
meritocratic approach to appointments (there doesn’t appear to be a nominations committee). Whilst this may have been
acceptable before the flotation when the Rosh family owned all of the shares, the flotation introduced an important need for
external scrutiny of this arrangement. The lack of NED independence makes this difficult.
There is a poor (very narrow) diversity of backgrounds among board members. Whilst diversity can bring increased conflict,
it is generally assumed that it can also stimulate discussion and debate that is often helpful.
There is a somewhat entrenched executive board and Mary is the first new appointment to the board in many years (and is
the first woman). Whilst experience is very important on a board, the appointment of new members, in addition to seeding
the board with talent for the future, can also bring fresh ideas and helpful scrutiny of existing policies.
There is no discussion of strategy and there is evidence of a lack of preparation of strategic notes to the board. The assumption
seems to be that the ‘best’ option is obvious and so there is no need for discussion and debate. Procedures for preparing
briefing notes on strategy for board meetings appear to be absent. Most corporate governance codes place the discussion and
setting of strategy as a high priority for boards and Rosh would be in breach of such a provision.
There is no evidence of training for Mary to facilitate her introduction into the organisation and its systems. Thorough training
of new members and ongoing professional development of existing members is an important component of good governance.