2020年内蒙古ACCA国际会计师考场规则,可以带计算器!
发布时间:2020-01-09
ACCA考场规则是什么呢?跟国内考试的规定有区别吗?这些问题是许多即将参加2020年3月份ACCA考试的同学们最关心的问题,害怕自己辛辛苦苦准备了几个月之久的考试就因为一个不小心触犯了相关的规定,那就得不偿失了。接下来,51题库考试学习网为大家盘点历年来ACCA考试的相关规定,希望大家引以为戒,小心不要触犯哟~
具体点来说,ACCA考试的考场规则主要分为两部分,一个就是进入考场前,另一个就是进入考场之后
ACCA考前规则:
1.考生须在开始考试之前30分钟到达ACCA考试地点,以免在出现突发情况。监考老师对考生进行核查考生本人身份证、ACCA注册号。
2.考生可选择开考前进行网上测试(见机考中心通知),也可选择开考前1小时到达考点,在机考中心进行测试,熟悉机考流程。(建议考生最好选择前者,后者可能出现在机考中心测试的人数太多而不能及时测试导致不熟悉机考流程的情况)
3.考生在考试开始前15分钟经过监考老师批准方可进入考场。逾时不得再进入考场。
4. 考生在到达考场并进行签到后,如因特殊原因需要离场,请主动联系监考人员,不得擅自离开,经过监考老师允许之后才可以离开。
5. 最好不要携带贵重物品前往考场,丢失了后果自负的。
注意:ACCA机考必须带那些东西
首先是自行在官网上打印的准考证其次就是身份证再是可以携带不带有记忆存储功能的计算器。(如考生有携带手机、包包等私人物品,请将其放至监考老师指定区域。)
进入考场后的规则
1.考生进入考场后必须把考试相关书籍材料等放到指定位置,并将手机等通讯设备关闭。考生只允许携带考试规定携带的东西进入考场,例如本人身份证、笔、单功能计算器进入考场,一经发现,按作弊处理。
2.考试开始前,监考人员会宣读考场纪律;考生需要在电脑上输入个人信息,监考人员会核对考生的身份;身份核对后,电脑上会显示出3页考试操作指南,考生仔细阅读,阅读完毕之后,举手向监控人员请示,得到监考人员的允许后才可点击考试科目,开始考试。
3.考试开始时,题目会直接在屏幕上显示,请直接在电脑上输入答案。不能点开电脑里的其他软件
4.考试结束后,需要打印2份考试成绩通知单,自己保留一份,机考中心保留一份。
5.机考中心会在考试结束后上传考试成绩,72小时内成绩会上传到考生的MYACCA成绩记录中。
6.考试费用一旦交付,如因考生自身原因缺考,作弃权处理,不须考虑退款事宜。因此建议各位考生要谨慎报名,毕竟考试费用也是一笔不小的费用。
7.ACCA机考中心保留因不可抗力因素(如网络问题,停电等)调整机考时间或取消考试的权力。出现了以上情况,及时向监考人员反映,他们会为你解决问题。
迟到及提早交卷规定:
在开考后1小时内到达的迟到考生可以入场,但不能补偿考试时间。简单的来说就是即便是晚到1小时,你的考试时间也不会往后延时1小时,交卷铃声响起你同样得交卷。而开考1小时以后到达的考生就算做放弃此次考试,不能入场。
这些考场规则有没有帮助到各位ACCAer们呀?相信大家看了之后或多或少对ACCA考场规则都有了一定的了解,51题库考试学习网提醒大家,认真阅读考场规则,如果和上面所述的规则有一定的出入,各地的相关考场规则以各地的为准,最后51题库考试学习网预祝大家考试顺利上岸~
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。
1 The scientists in the research laboratories of Swan Hill Company (SHC, a public listed company) recently made a very
important discovery about the process that manufactured its major product. The scientific director, Dr Sonja Rainbow,
informed the board that the breakthrough was called the ‘sink method’. She explained that the sink method would
enable SHC to produce its major product at a lower unit cost and in much higher volumes than the current process.
It would also produce lower unit environmental emissions and would substantially improve product quality compared
to its current process and indeed compared to all of the other competitors in the industry.
SHC currently has 30% of the global market with its nearest competitor having 25% and the other twelve producers
sharing the remainder. The company, based in the town of Swan Hill, has a paternalistic management approach and
has always valued its relationship with the local community. Its website says that SHC has always sought to maximise
the benefit to the workforce and community in all of its business decisions and feels a great sense of loyalty to the
Swan Hill locality which is where it started in 1900 and has been based ever since.
As the board considered the implications of the discovery of the sink method, chief executive Nelson Cobar asked
whether Sonja Rainbow was certain that SHC was the only company in the industry that had made the discovery and
she said that she was. She also said that she was certain that the competitors were ‘some years’ behind SHC in their
research.
It quickly became clear that the discovery of the sink method was so important and far reaching that it had the
potential to give SHC an unassailable competitive advantage in its industry. Chief executive Nelson Cobar told board
colleagues that they should clearly understand that the discovery had the potential to put all of SHC’s competitors out
of business and make SHC the single global supplier. He said that as the board considered the options, members
should bear in mind the seriousness of the implications upon the rest of the industry.
Mr Cobar said there were two strategic options. Option one was to press ahead with the huge investment of new plant
necessary to introduce the sink method into the factory whilst, as far as possible, keeping the nature of the sink
technology secret from competitors (the ‘secrecy option’). A patent disclosing the nature of the technology would not
be filed so as to keep the technology secret within SHC. Option two was to file a patent and then offer the use of the
discovery to competitors under a licensing arrangement where SHC would receive substantial royalties for the twentyyear
legal lifetime of the patent (the ‘licensing option’). This would also involve new investment but at a slower pace
in line with competitors. The licence contract would, Mr Cobar explained, include an ‘improvement sharing’
requirement where licensees would be required to inform. SHC of any improvements discovered that made the sink
method more efficient or effective.
The sales director, Edwin Kiama, argued strongly in favour of the secrecy option. He said that the board owed it to
SHC’s shareholders to take the option that would maximise shareholder value. He argued that business strategy was
all about gaining competitive advantage and this was a chance to do exactly that. Accordingly, he argued, the sink
method should not be licensed to competitors and should be pursued as fast as possible. The operations director said
that to gain the full benefits of the sink method with either option would require a complete refitting of the factory and
the largest capital investment that SHC had ever undertaken.
The financial director, Sean Nyngan, advised the board that pressing ahead with investment under the secrecy option
was not without risks. First, he said, he would have to finance the investment, probably initially through debt, and
second, there were risks associated with any large investment. He also informed the board that the licensing option
would, over many years, involve the inflow of ‘massive’ funds in royalty payments from competitors using the SHC’s
patented sink method. By pursuing the licensing option, Sean Nyngan said that they could retain their market
leadership in the short term without incurring risk, whilst increasing their industry dominance in the future through
careful investment of the royalty payments.
The non-executive chairman, Alison Manilla, said that she was looking at the issue from an ethical perspective. She
asked whether SHC had the right, even if it had the ability, to put competitors out of business.
Required:
(a) Assess the secrecy option using Tucker’s model for decision-making. (10 marks)
(a) Tucker’s framework
Is the decision:
Profitable? For SHC, the answer to this question is yes. Profits would potentially be substantially increased by the loss of all
of its competitors and the emergence of SHC, in the short to medium term at least, as a near monopolist.
Legal? The secrecy option poses no legal problems as it is a part of normal competitive behaviour in industries. In some
jurisdictions, legislation forbids monopolies existing in some industries but there is no indication from the case that this
restriction applies to Swan Hill Company.
Fair? The fairness of the secrecy option is a moral judgment. It is probably fair when judged from the perspective of SHC’s
shareholders but the question is the extent to which it is fair to the employees and shareholders of SHC’s competitors.
Right? Again, a question of ethical perspective. Is it right to pursue the subjugation of competitors and the domination of an
industry regardless of the consequences to competitors? The secrecy option may be of the most benefit to the local community
of Swan Hill that the company has traditionally valued.
Sustainable or environmentally sound? The case says that the sink method emits at a lower rate per unit of output than the
existing process but this has little to do with the secrecy option as the rates of emissions would apply if SHC licensed the
process. This is also an argument for the licensing option, however, as environmental emissions would be lower if other
competitors switched to the sink method as well. There may be environmental implications in decommissioning the old plant
to make way for the new sink method investment.
4 The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has begun a joint project to revisit its conceptual framework for
financial accounting and reporting. The goals of the project are to build on the existing frameworks and converge them
into a common framework.
Required:
(a) Discuss why there is a need to develop an agreed international conceptual framework and the extent to which
an agreed international conceptual framework can be used to resolve practical accounting issues.
(13 marks)
(a) The IASB wish their standards to be ‘principles-based’ and in order for this to be the case, the standards must be based on
fundamental concepts. These concepts need to constitute a framework which is sound, comprehensive and internally
consistent. Without agreement on a framework, standard setting is based upon the personal conceptual frameworks of the
individual standard setters which may change as the membership of the body changes and results in standards that are not
consistent with each other. Such a framework is designed not only to assist standard setters, but also preparers of financial
statements, auditors and users.
A common goal of the IASB is to converge their standards with national standard setters. The IASB will encounter difficulties
converging their standards if decisions are based on different frameworks. The IASB has been pursuing a number of projects
that are aimed at achieving short term convergence on certain issues with national standard setters as well as major projects
with them. Convergence will be difficult if there is no consistency in the underlying framework being used.
Frameworks differ in their authoritative status. The IASB’s Framework requires management to expressly consider the
Framework if no standard or interpretation specifically applies or deals with a similar and related issue. However, certain
frameworks have a lower standing. For example, entities are not required to consider the concepts embodied in certain
national frameworks in preparing financial statements. Thus the development of an agreed framework would eliminate
differences in the authoritative standing of conceptual frameworks and lead to greater consistency in financial statements
internationally.
The existing concepts within most frameworks are quite similar. However, these concepts need revising to reflect changes in
markets, business practices and the economic environment since the concepts were developed. The existing frameworks need
developing to reflect these changes and to fill gaps in the frameworks. For example, the IASB’s Framework does not contain
a definition of the reporting entity. An agreed international framework could deal with this problem, especially if priority was
given to the issues likely to give short-term standard setting benefits.
Many standard setting bodies attempted initially to resolve accounting and reporting problems by developing accounting
standards without an accepted theoretical frame. of reference. The result has been inconsistency in the development of
standards both nationally and internationally. The frameworks were developed when several of their current standards were
in existence. In the absence of an agreed conceptual framework the same theoretical issues are revisited on several occasions
by standard setters. The result is inconsistencies and incompatible concepts. Examples of this are substance over form. and
matching versus prudence. Some standard setters such as the IASB permit two methods of accounting for the same set of
circumstances. An example is the accounting for joint ventures where the equity method and proportionate consolidation are
allowed.
Additionally there have been differences in the way that standard setters have practically used the principles in the framework.
Some national standard setters have produced a large number of highly detailed accounting rules with less emphasis on
general principles. A robust framework might reduce the need for detailed rules although some companies operate in a
different legal and statutory context than other entities. It is important that a framework must result in standards that account
appropriately for actual business practice.
An agreed framework will not solve all accounting issues, nor will it obviate the need for judgement to be exercised in resolving
accounting issues. It can provide a framework within which those judgements can be made.
A framework provides standard setters with both a foundation for setting standards, and concepts to use as tools for resolving
accounting and reporting issues. A framework provides a basic reasoning on which to consider the merits of alternatives. It
does not provide all the answers, but narrows the range of alternatives to be considered by eliminating some that are
inconsistent with it. It, thereby, contributes to greater efficiency in the standard setting process by avoiding the necessity of
having to redebate fundamental issues and facilitates any debate about specific technical issues. A framework should also
reduce political pressures in making accounting judgements. The use of a framework reduces the influence of personal biases
in accounting decisions.
However, concepts statements are by their nature very general and theoretical in their wording, which leads to alternative
conclusions being drawn. Whilst individual standards should be consistent with the Framework, in the absence of a specific
standard, it does not follow that concepts will provide practical solutions. IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’ sets out a hierarchy of authoritative guidance that should be considered in the absence of a standard.
In this case, management can use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy, albeit by considering the
IASB framework, but can also use accounting standards issued by other bodies. Thus an international framework may nottotally provide solutions to practical accounting problems.
(ii) State, with reasons, whether Messier Ltd can provide Galileo with accommodation in the UK without
giving rise to a UK income tax liability. (2 marks)
(ii) Tax-free accommodation
It is not possible for Messier Ltd to provide Galileo with tax-free accommodation. The provision of accommodation by an
employer to an employee will give rise to a taxable benefit unless it is:
– necessary for the proper performance of the employee’s duties, e.g. a caretaker; or
– for the better performance of the employee’s duties and customary, e.g. a hotel manager; or
– part of arrangements arising out of threats to the employee’s security, e.g. a government minister.
As a manager of Messier Ltd Galileo is unable to satisfy any of the above conditions.
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。
- 2020-05-15
- 2020-04-04
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-04-29
- 2020-03-24
- 2020-02-26
- 2020-05-12
- 2020-02-18
- 2020-01-07
- 2019-07-19
- 2019-07-19
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-09-04
- 2020-04-22
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-09-04
- 2020-05-20
- 2019-07-19
- 2020-05-09
- 2020-03-10
- 2019-07-19
- 2020-03-21
- 2020-03-28
- 2020-04-01
- 2019-07-19
- 2020-04-11
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-04-16
- 2020-05-20
- 2020-01-09