2019ACCA这些免考福利政策你都清楚了吗？

正确答案：
2 Advice on sundry accounting issues: year ended 31 May 2006
The following details the nature of the advice relevant to the accounting issues.
Revenue recognition
(i) Sale to customers
IAS18 ‘Revenue’ requires that revenue relating to the sale of goods is recognised when the significant risks and rewards are
transferred to the buyer. Also the company should not retain any continuing managerial involvement associated with
ownership or control of the goods. Additionally the revenue and costs must be capable of reliable measurement and it should
be probable that the economic benefits of the transaction will go to the company.
Although the deposit is non refundable on cancellation of the order by the customer, there is a valid expectation that the
deposit will be repaid where the company does not fulfil its contractual obligation in supplying the vehicle. The deposit should,
therefore, only be recognised in revenue when the vehicle has been delivered and accepted by the customer. It should be
treated as a liability up to this point. At this point also, the balance of the sale proceeds will be recognised. If the customer
does cancel the order, then the deposit would be recognised in revenue at the date of the cancellation of the order.
The appendix to IAS18, although not part of the standard, agrees that revenue is recognised when goods of this nature are
delivered to the buyer.
Sale of Fleet cars
The company has not transferred the significant risks and rewards of ownership as required by IAS18 as the buyback option
is expected to occur. The reason for this conclusion is that the company has retained the risk associated with the residual
value of the vehicles. Therefore, the transaction should not be treated as a sale. The vehicles should be treated as an operating
lease as essentially only 60% of the purchase price will be received by Tyre. Ownership of the assets are not expected to be
transferred to Hub, the lease term is arguably not for the major part of the assets’ life, and the present value of the minimum
lease payments will not be substantially equivalent to the fair value of the asset. Therefore it is an operating lease (IAS17).
No ‘outright sale profit’ will be recognised as the risks and rewards of ownership have been retained and no sale has occurred.
The vehicles will be shown in property, plant and equipment at their carrying amount. The lease income should be recognised
on a straight line basis over the lease term of three years unless some other basis is more representative. The vehicles will
be depreciated in accordance with IAS16, ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. If there is any indication of impairment then the
company will apply IAS36 ‘Impairment of Assets’. As the discount given is normal for this type of transaction, it will not be
taken into account in estimating the fair value of the assets.
The buyback option will probably meet the definition of a financial liability and will be accounted for under IAS39 ‘Financial
Instruments: recognition and measurement’. The liability should be measured at ‘fair value’ and subsequently at amortisedcost unless designated at the outset as being at fair value through profit or loss.

正确答案：
(b) Gift of the share portfolio to Avril
Inheritance tax
The gift would be a potentially exempt transfer at market value. No inheritance tax would be due at the time of the gift.
Capital gains tax
The gift would be a disposal by Crusoe deemed to be made at market value for the purposes of capital gains tax. No gain
would arise as the deemed proceeds will equal Crusoe’s base cost of probate value.
Stamp duty
There is no stamp duty on a gift of shares for no consideration.
Strategy to avoid a possible tax liability in the future
Crusoe should enter into a deed of variation directing the administrators to transfer the shares to Avril rather than to him. This
will not be regarded as a gift by Crusoe. Instead, provided the deed states that it is intended to be effective for inheritance tax
purposes, it will be as if Noland had left the shares to Avril in a will.
This strategy is more tax efficient than Crusoe gifting the shares to Avril as such a gift would be a potentially exempt transfer
and inheritance tax may be due if Crusoe were to die within seven years.
The deed of variation must be entered into by 1 October 2009, i.e. within two years of the date of Noland’s death.

正确答案：
(ii) As Sharon is entitled to the full rate of business asset taper relief, any gain will be reduced by 75%. The position is
maximised where the chargeable gain equals Sharon’s unused capital gains tax annual exemption of ￡8,500. Thus,
before taper relief, the gain she requires is ￡34,000 (1/0·25 x ￡8,500).
The amount to be held over is therefore ￡46,000 (80,000 – 34,000). Where part of the consideration is in the form
of cash, the gain eligible for incorporation relief is calculated using the formula:
Gain deferred           =                    Gain x value of shares issued/total consideration
The formula is        manipulated on the following basis:
￡46,000                    =                     ￡80,000 x (shares/120,000)
Shares/120,000     =                     ￡46,000/80,000
Shares                     =                     ￡46,000 x 120,000/80,000
i.e. ￡69,000.
As the total consideration is ￡120,000, this means that Sharon can take ￡51,000 (￡120,000 – ￡69,000) in cash
without any CGT consequences.

正确答案：

(ii) As far as annual agreements relating to property work are concerned, HLP had a take up rate of 82·5% whereas MAS
had a take up rate of only 50%. Therefore, HLP has ‘lost out’ to competitor MAS in relative financial terms as regards
the ‘take-up’ of consultations relating to property work. This is because both HLP and MAS received an annual fee from
each property client irrespective of the number of consultations given. MAS should therefore have had a better profit
margin from this area of business than HLP. However, the extent to which HLP has ‘lost out’ cannot be quantified since
we would need to know the variable costs per consultation and this detail is not available. What we do know is that
HLP earned actual revenue per effective consultation amounting to ￡90·90 whereas the budgeted revenue per
consultation amounted to ￡100. MAS earned ￡120 per effective consultation.
The same picture emerges from annual agreements relating to commercial work. HLP had a budgeted take up rate of
50%, however the actual take up rate during the period was 90%. MAS had an actual take up rate of 50%. The actual
revenue per effective consultation earned by HLP amounted to ￡167 whereas the budgeted revenue per consultation
amounted to ￡300. MAS earned ￡250 per effective consultation.
There could possibly be an upside to this situation for HLP in that it might be the case that the uptake of 90% of
consultations without further charge by clients holding annual agreements in respect of commercial work might be
indicative of a high level of customer satisfaction. It could on the other hand be indicative of a mindset which says ‘I
have already paid for these consultations therefore I am going to request them’.
(iii) Budgeted and actual salaries in HLP were ￡50,000 per annum, per advisor. Two additional advisors were employed
during the year in order to provide consultations in respect of commercial work. MAS paid a salary of ￡60,000 to each
advisor which is 20% higher than the salary of ￡50,000 paid to each advisor by HLP. Perhaps this is indicative that
the advisors employed by MAS are more experienced and/or better qualified than those employed by HLP.
HLP paid indemnity insurance of ￡250,000 which is ￡150,000 (150%) more than the amount of ￡100,000 paid by
MAS. This excess cost may well have arisen as a consequence of successful claims against HLP for negligence in
undertaking commercial work. It would be interesting to know whether HLP had been the subject of any successful
claims for negligent work during recent years as premiums invariably reflect the claims history of a business. Rather
worrying is the fact that HLP was subject to three such claims during the year ended 31 May 2007.
Significant subcontract costs were incurred by HLP during the year probably in an attempt to satisfy demand and retain
the goodwill of its clients. HLP incurred subcontract costs in respect of commercial properties which totalled ￡144,000.
These consultations earned revenue amounting to (320 x ￡150) = ￡48,000, hence a loss of ￡96,000 was incurred
in this area of the business.
HLP also paid ￡300,000 for 600 subcontract consultations in respect of litigation work. These consultations earned
revenue amounting to (600 x ￡250) = ￡150,000, hence a loss of ￡150,000 was incurred in this area of the business.
In contrast, MAS paid ￡7,000 for 20 subcontract consultations in respect of commercial work and an identical amount
for 20 subcontract consultations in respect of litigation work. These consultations earned revenue amounting to
20 x (￡150 + ￡200) =￡7,000. Therefore, a loss of only ￡7,000 was incurred in respect of subcontract consultations
by MAS.
Other operating expenses were budgeted at 53·0% of sales revenue. The actual level incurred was 40·7% of sales
revenue. The fixed/variable split of such costs is not given but it may well be the case that the fall in this percentage is
due to good cost control by HLP. However, it might simply be the case that the original budget was flawed. Competitor
MAS would appear to have a slightly superior cost structure to that of HLP since its other operating expenses amounted
to 38·4% of sales revenue. Further information is required in order to draw firmer conclusions regarding cost control
within both businesses.