2020年ACCA报考条件出来了，想知道的赶紧来看看吧！

正确答案：
Part (d):
Oliver should arrange a formal grievance interview with the appropriate partner. Both Oliver and the partner need to be aware that
the grievance interview follows three steps in a particular and logical order. The meeting between Oliver and the partner responsible
for human resources must be in a formal atmosphere.
The first stage is exploration. The manager or supervisor – in this case the partner responsible for human resources – must gather
as much information as possible. No solution must be offered at this stage. The need is to establish what is actually the problem;
the background to the problem (in this case the icy relationship between Oliver and David Morgan) and the facts and causes of
the problem – in this case the resentment felt by David Morgan over Oliver’s appointment.
The second stage is the consideration stage. This is undertaken by the appropriate manager or partner here, who must firstly check
the facts, analyse the causes of the complaint and evaluate possible solutions. The meeting may be adjourned if at this stage the
partner requires more time to fulfil this step.
The final stage is the reply. This will be carried out by the partner after he or she has reached and reviewed a conclusion. It is
important that the outcome is recorded in writing; the meeting and therefore the interview and procedure is only successful when
an agreement is reached.
If no agreement is reached then the procedure should be taken to a higher level of management.

正确答案：
(b) Sale of industrial equipment
(i) Matters
■ The industrial equipment was in use for nine years (from April 1996) and would have had a carrying value of
$660,000 at 31 March 2005 (11/20 × $1·2m – assuming nil residual value and a full year’s depreciation charge
in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal). Disposal proceeds were therefore only $360,000.
■ The $0·3m loss represents 15% of PBT (for the year to 31 March 2006) and is therefore material. The equipment
was material to the balance sheet at 31 March 2005 representing 2·6% of total assets ($0·66/$25·7 × 100).
■ Separate disclosure, of a material loss on disposal, on the face of the income statement is in accordance with
IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. However, in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’,
it should not be captioned in any way that might suggest that it is not part of normal operating activities (i.e. not
‘extraordinary’, ‘exceptional’, etc).
Tutorial note: However, note that if there is a prior period error to be accounted for (see later), there would be
no impact on the current period income statement requiring consideration of any disclosure.
■ The reason for the sale. For example, whether the equipment was:
– surplus to operating requirements (i.e. not being replaced); or
– being replaced with newer equipment (thereby contributing to the $8·1m increase (33·8 – 25·7) in total
assets).
■ The reason for the loss on sale. For example, whether:
– the sale was at an under-value (e.g. to a related party);
– the equipment had a bad maintenance history (or was otherwise impaired);
– the useful life of the equipment is less than 20 years;
– there is any deferred consideration not yet recorded;
– any non-cash disposal proceeds have been overlooked (e.g. if another asset was acquired in a part-exchange).
■ If the useful life was less than 20 years, tangible non-current assets may be materially overstated in respect of other
items of equipment that are still in use and being depreciated on the same basis.
■ If the sale was to a related party then additional disclosure should be required in a note to the financial statements
for the year to 31 March 2006 (IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures’).
Tutorial note: Since there are no specific pointers to a related party transaction (RPT), this point is not expanded
on.
■ Whether the sale was identified in the prior year audit’s post balance sheet event review. If so:
– the disclosure made in the prior year’s financial statements (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’);
– whether an impairment loss was recognised at 31 March 2005.
■ If not, and the equipment was impaired at 31 March 2005, a prior period error should be accounted for (IAS 8
‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’). An impairment loss of $0·3m would have
been material to prior year profit (12·5%).
Tutorial note: Unless this was a RPT or the impairment arose after 31 March 2005 a prior period adjustment
should be made.
■ Failure to account for a prior period error (if any) would result in modification of the audit opinion ‘except for’ noncompliance
with IAS 8 (in the current year) and IAS 36 (in the prior period).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying amount ($0·66m as above) agreed to the non-current asset register balances at 31 March 2005 and
recalculation of the loss on disposal.
■ Cost and accumulated depreciation removed from the asset register in the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Receipt of proceeds per cash book agreed to bank statement.
■ Sales invoice transferring title to Deakin.
■ A review of maintenance expenses and records (e.g. to confirm reason for loss on sale).
■ Post balance sheet event review on prior year audit working papers file.
■ Management representation confirming that Deakin is not a related party (provided that there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise).

正确答案：
(ii) Government stock is an exempt asset for the purposes of capital gains tax, however, as Andrew’s holding has a nominal
value in excess of ￡5,000, a charge to income tax will arise under the accrued income scheme. This charge to income
tax will arise in 2005/06, being the tax year in which the next interest payment following disposal falls due (20 April
2005) and it will relate to the income accrued for the period 21 October 2004 to 14 March 2005 of ￡279 (145/182
x ￡350). As interest on Government Stock is paid gross (unless the holder applies to receive it net), the tax due of ￡112
(￡279 x 40%) will be collected via the self-assessment system and as the interest was an ongoing source of income
will be included within Andrew’s half yearly payments on account payable on 31 January and 31 July 2006.