2020年全国ACCA国际会计师考场规则，可以带计算器！

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).

正确答案：
(c) An organisation considering the use of external recruitment consultants would make its decision upon the availability, level and appropriateness of expertise available within the host organisation and its likely effectiveness, together with the cost of using consultants set against the cost of using the organisation’s own staff. The organisation should consider the level of expertise required of potential employees and therefore the appropriate knowledge required of the consultants and the need for impartiality or security which may be of particular importance for some organisations. In addition, the views of internal staff as to the likely effect of using outside consultants must be considered, as is the effect the use of consultants might have on the need to develop expertise within the organisation.

正确答案：
(d) Stuart is not making use of his nil rate band, as all assets are transferred, exempt from inheritance tax (IHT), to Rebecca (as
spouse) on death. He should consider altering his will to transfer an amount equivalent to the nil rate band to his son, Sam.
If Stuart dies before altering his will, Rebecca can elect to make a Deed of Variation in favour of Sam instead. This will have
the same effect as the above.
Care should be taken in determining which assets are subject to this legacy. The Omega plc shares should not be transferred
to Sam as they currently attract 50% BPR. Instead, assets not subject to any reliefs (such as the insurance payout or cash
deposits) should be used instead. By doing this, IHT of ￡105,200 (￡263,000 x 40%) could be saved on the ultimate death
of Rebecca.
It is too late for Stuart to make use of potentially exempt transfers (PETs) as no relief is obtained until three years have passed,
and full relief only occurs seven years after making the gifts. The same would also apply to Rebecca if she were to die on 1
March 2008. However, as she is currently in good health, she may decide to make lifetime gifts, although she should also
not gift the Omega plc shares for the reasons stated above as any gift other than of the entire holding will result in the loss
of BPR on the remainder.
Both individuals should make use of their annual exemptions (￡3,000 per person per year). The annual exemptions not used
up in the previous year can be used in this current year. This would give a saving of ￡2,400 each (3,000 x 2 x 40%).
Exemptions for items such as small gifts (￡250 per donee per year) are also available.
Gifts out of normal income should also be considered. After making such gifts, the individual should be left with sufficient
income to maintain their usual standard of living. To obtain the exemption, it is usually necessary to demonstrate general
evidence of a prior commitment to make the gifts, or a settled pattern of expenditure.
While there are no details of income, both Stuart and Rebecca are wealthy in their own right, and are likely to earn reasonable
sums from their investments. They should therefore be able to satisfy the conditions on that basis.
If Rebecca were to make substantial lifetime gifts, the donees would be advised to consider taking out insurance policies on
Rebecca’s life to cover the potential tax liabilities that may arise on any PETs in the event of her early death.
Tutorial note: the answer has assumed that the shares could be bought for ￡2·10, their value for IHT.