广西考生注意:在ACCA考试中提前交卷后果怎么样?不堪设想……
发布时间:2020-01-09
近期,有不少第一次备考ACCA考试的小伙伴来咨询51题库考试学习网,问:考试能不能提前交卷呢?在这里告诉大家,根据考试的相关规定是不允许的。什么?还有些小伙伴不知道考试时应当注意些什么?没关系,现在了解还来得及,51题库考试学习网这就将相关注意事项告诉大家:
ACCA考试之前注意事项:
1.考生必须准时到场考试,一旦迟到,考试时间不会延长。因此,再次强调考生必须时刻关注考试时间,以防迟到。
2.三小时答题时间及15分钟的读题时间以准考证时间为准。阅读过程中,考生可以浏览试题册,但是不能打开并书写答题册。如果违法相关规定,有可能会取消考试资格
3.需要注意的还有,考试开始一小时后,考生不允许再进入考场。
4.直到考试结束,考生才允许离开考场。
5.如果考生要求短时间离开考场,必须有监考人员陪同。
6.不得私自携带手机等电子工具,考生必须将书包和公文包放置监考人员规定处。
7.对于笔考的科目,考生只能用黑色圆珠笔作答。
8.考生必须确认自己参加的考试的代号与准考证上的考试科目代号一致。
ACCA考试时的注意事项有哪些?
1.在新版的考生答题册上(candidate answer booklet)的第一页仔细填涂以下项目
1)考试的科目和版本(注:如P2,应填INT;F4填写ENG;F6填写UK等)
2)考场代码(包括Hall code)考场名字和座位号
3)以上信息均在你个人的准考证(Exam Attendance Docket)上有显示;
2.在新的一页上开始每答一道新题,要在这页上部填涂题号;
3.所有答题均使用黑色圆珠笔作答,(铅笔,黑色签字笔,荧光笔等不允许);
4.答错可划掉错误的答案,不允许使用涂改液;51题库考试学习网建议考生在不确定答案的时候最好不要填写,卷面也是影响得分的一大因素
5.不能将答案写在答题纸边缘及答题本两页的中间位置,否则将视为无效作答;
学生如需要,可索要第二本答题本,第二本答题本上同样必须填写完整个人信息。
当然,对于笔考,机考的确是有些差别的。这主要体现在:
1、大题部分需要通过计算机进行解答,相较于笔试,计算机打字能力和某些公式的熟练度会间接地影响考试结果;
2、考试时间有所不同。目前,应用技能课程的机考时间均为3个小时,而战略课程的笔试一般为3小时15分钟,SBL为4个小时。因此,考试在考试之前需要提前了解是机考还是笔考,以免出现战略层面上的失误。
以上ACCA考试的注意事项大家要提高警觉哦,遇到了上文提到以外突发事故及时向监考老师提出来,听从监考老师的安排即可,不要因为突发事件而影响了自己的考试心态从而影响到成绩。调整好心态,重新积极考试!~
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。
(e) Internal controls are very important in a complex civil engineering project such as the Giant Dam Project.
Required:
Describe the difficulties of maintaining sound internal controls in the Giant Dam Project created by working
through sub-contractors. (4 marks)
(e) Control and sub-contractors
Specifically in regard to the maintenance of internal controls when working with sub-contractors, the prominent difficulties
are likely to be in the following areas:
Configuring and co-ordinating the many activities of sub-contractors so as to keep progress on track. This may involve taking
the different cultures of sub-contractor organisations into account.
Loss of direct control over activities as tasks are performed by people outside R&M’s direct employment and hence its
management structure.
Monitoring the quality of work produced by the sub-contractors. Monitoring costs will be incurred and any quality problems
will be potentially costly.
Budget ‘creep’ and cost control. Keeping control of budgets can be a problem in any large civil engineering project (such the
construction of the new Wembley Stadium in the UK) and problems are likely to be made worse when the principal contractor
does not have direct control over all activities.
Time limit over-runs. Many projects (again, such as the new Wembley Stadium, but others also) over-run significantly on time.
Tutorial note: only four difficulties need to be described.
5 You are an audit manager in Dedza, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants. Recently, you have been assigned
specific responsibility for undertaking annual reviews of existing clients. The following situations have arisen in
connection with three client companies:
(a) Dedza was appointed auditor and tax advisor to Kora Co, a limited liability company, last year and has recently
issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2005. To your surprise,
the tax authority has just launched an investigation into the affairs of Kora on suspicion of underdeclaring income.
(7 marks)
Required:
Identify and comment on the ethical and other professional issues raised by each of these matters and state what
action, if any, Dedza should now take.
NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three situations.
5 DEDZA CO
(a) Tax investigation
■ Kora is a relatively new client. Before accepting the assignment(s) Dedza should have carried out customer due
diligence (CDD). Dedza should therefore have a sufficient knowledge and understanding of Kora to be aware of any
suspicions that the tax authority might have.
■ As the investigation has come as a surprise it is possible that, for example:
– the tax authority’s suspicions are unfounded;
– Dedza has failed to recognise suspicious circumstances.
Tutorial note: In either case, Dedza should seek clarification on the period of suspicion and review relevant procedures.
■ Dedza should review any communication from the predecessor auditor obtained in response to its ‘professional inquiry’
(for any professional reasons why the appointment should not have been accepted).
■ A quality control for new audits is that the audit opinion should be subject to a second partner review before it is issued.
It should be considered now whether or not such a review took place. If it did, then it should be sufficiently well
documented to evidence that the review was thorough and not a mere formality.
■ Criminal property includes the proceeds of tax evasion. If Kora is found to be guilty of under-declaring income that is a
money laundering offence.
■ Dedza’s reputational risk will be increased if implicated because it knew (or ought to have known) about Kora’s activities.
(Dedza may also be liable if found to have been negligent in failing to detect any material misstatement arising in the
2004/05 financial statements as a result.)
■ Kora’s audit working paper files and tax returns should be reviewed for any suspicion of fraud being committed by Kora
or error overlooked by Dedza. Tax advisory work should have been undertaken and/or reviewed by a manager/partner
not involved in the audit work.
■ As tax advisor, Dedza could soon be making disclosures of misstatements to the tax authority on behalf of Kora. Dedza
should encourage Kora to make necessary disclosure voluntarily.
■ Dedza will not be in breach of its duty of confidentiality to Kora if Kora gives Dedza permission to disclose information
to the tax authority (or Dedza is legally required to do so).
■ If Dedza finds reasonable grounds to know or suspect that potential disclosures to the tax authority relate to criminal
conduct, then a suspicious transaction report (STR) should be made to the financial intelligence unit (FIU) also.
Tutorial note: Though not the main issue credit will be awarded for other ethical issues such as the potential selfinterest/
self-review threat arising from the provision of other services.
(d) Advise on any lifetime inheritance tax (IHT) planning that could be undertaken in respect of both Stuart and
Rebecca to help reduce the potential inheritance tax (IHT) liability calculated in (c) above. (7 marks)
Relevant retail price index figures are:
May 1994 144·7
April 1998 162·6
(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.
(ii) On 1 July 2006 Petrie introduced a 10-year warranty on all sales of its entire range of stainless steel
cookware. Sales of stainless steel cookware for the year ended 31 March 2007 totalled $18·2 million. The
notes to the financial statements disclose the following:
‘Since 1 July 2006, the company’s stainless steel cookware is guaranteed to be free from defects in
materials and workmanship under normal household use within a 10-year guarantee period. No provision
has been recognised as the amount of the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability.’
(4 marks)
Your auditor’s report on the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2006 was unmodified.
Required:
Identify and comment on the implications of these two matters for your auditor’s report on the financial
statements of Petrie Co for the year ended 31 March 2007.
NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the matters above.
(ii) 10-year guarantee
$18·2 million stainless steel cookware sales amount to 43·1% of revenue and are therefore material. However, the
guarantee was only introduced three months into the year, say in respect of $13·6 million (3/4 × 18·2 million) i.e.
approximately 32% of revenue.
The draft note disclosure could indicate that Petrie’s management believes that Petrie has a legal obligation in respect
of the guarantee, that is not remote and likely to be material (otherwise no disclosure would have been required).
A best estimate of the obligation amounting to 5% profit before tax (or more) is likely to be considered material, i.e.
$90,000 (or more). Therefore, if it is probable that 0·66% of sales made under guarantee will be returned for refund,
this would require a warranty provision that would be material.
Tutorial note: The return of 2/3% of sales over a 10-year period may well be probable.
Clearly there is a present obligation as a result of a past obligating event for sales made during the nine months to
31 March 2007. Although the likelihood of outflow under the guarantee is likely to be insignificant (even remote) it is
probable that some outflow will be needed to settle the class of such obligations.
The note in the financial statements is disclosing this matter as a contingent liability. This term encompasses liabilities
that do not meet the recognition criteria (e.g. of reliable measurement in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent
Liabilities and Contingent Assets).
However, it is extremely rare that no reliable estimate can be made (IAS 37) – the use of estimates being essential to
the preparation of financial statements. Petrie’s management must make a best estimate of the cost of refunds/repairs
under guarantee taking into account, for example:
■ the proportion of sales during the nine months to 31 March 2007 that have been returned under guarantee at the
balance sheet date (and in the post balance sheet event period);
■ the average age of cookware showing a defect;
■ the expected cost of a replacement item (as a refund of replacement is more likely than a repair, say).
If management do not make a provision for the best estimate of the obligation the audit opinion should be qualified
‘except for’ non-compliance with IAS 37 (no provision made). The disclosure made in the note to the financial
statements, however detailed, is not a substitute for making the provision.
Tutorial note: No marks will be awarded for suggesting that an emphasis of matter of paragraph would be appropriate
(drawing attention to the matter more fully explained in the note).
Management’s claim that the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability does not give rise to a limitation
on scope on the audit. The auditor has sufficient evidence of the non-compliance with IAS 37 and disagrees with it.
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。
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-05-08
- 2020-01-29
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-01-04
- 2020-05-09
- 2020-02-15
- 2020-03-06
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-03-22
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-03-14
- 2020-02-27
- 2020-05-14
- 2021-06-24
- 2019-07-19
- 2020-05-02
- 2020-05-20
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-04-30
- 2020-01-07
- 2020-03-14
- 2020-01-09
- 2020-04-18
- 2020-03-18
- 2020-04-30
- 2020-02-14
- 2020-01-31