如何帮助陕西省考生高效的学习ACCA考试?

(b) Assess the benefits of the separation of the roles of chief executive and chairman that Alliya Yongvanich

argued for and explain her belief that ‘accountability to shareholders’ is increased by the separation of these

roles. (12 marks)

(a) List and explain FOUR methods of selecting a sample of items to test from a population in accordance with ISA 530 (Redrafted) Audit Sampling and Other Means of Testing. (4 marks)

(b) List and explain FOUR assertions from ISA 500 Audit Evidence that relate to the recording of classes of

transactions. (4 marks)

(c) In terms of audit reports, explain the term ‘modified’. (2 marks)

1 Rowlands & Medeleev (R&M), a major listed European civil engineering company, was successful in its bid to become

principal (lead) contractor to build the Giant Dam Project in an East Asian country. The board of R&M prided itself in

observing the highest standards of corporate governance. R&M’s client, the government of the East Asian country, had

taken into account several factors in appointing the principal contractor including each bidder’s track record in large

civil engineering projects, the value of the bid and a statement, required from each bidder, on how it would deal with

the ‘sensitive issues’ and publicity that might arise as a result of the project.

The Giant Dam Project was seen as vital to the East Asian country’s economic development as it would provide a

large amount of hydroelectric power. This was seen as a ‘clean energy’ driver of future economic growth. The

government was keen to point out that because hydroelectric power did not involve the burning of fossil fuels, the

power would be environmentally clean and would contribute to the East Asian country’s ability to meet its

internationally agreed carbon emission targets. This, in turn, would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases

in the environment. Critics, such as the environmental pressure group ‘Stop-the-dam’, however, argued that the

project was far too large and the cost to the local environment would be unacceptable. Stop-the-dam was highly

organised and, according to press reports in Europe, was capable of disrupting progress on the dam by measures such

as creating ‘human barriers’ to the site and hiding people in tunnels who would have to be physically removed before

proceeding. A spokesman for Stop-the-dam said it would definitely be attempting to resist the Giant Dam Project when

construction started.

The project was intended to dam one of the region’s largest rivers, thus creating a massive lake behind it. The lake

would, the critics claimed, not only displace an estimated 100,000 people from their homes, but would also flood

productive farmland and destroy several rare plant and animal habitats. A number of important archaeological sites

would also be lost. The largest community to be relocated was the indigenous First Nation people who had lived on

and farmed the land for an estimated thousand years. A spokesman for the First Nation community said that the ‘true

price’ of hydroelectric power was ‘misery and cruelty’. A press report said that whilst the First Nation would be unlikely

to disrupt the building of the dam, it was highly likely that they would protest and also attempt to mobilise opinion in

other parts of the world against the Giant Dam Project.

The board of R&M was fully aware of the controversy when it submitted its tender to build the dam. The finance

director, Sally Grignard, had insisted on putting an amount into the tender for the management of ‘local risks’. Sally

was also responsible for the financing of the project for R&M. Although the client was expected to release money in

several ‘interim payments’ as the various parts of the project were completed to strict time deadlines, she anticipated

a number of working capital challenges for R&M, especially near the beginning where a number of early stage costs

would need to be incurred. There would, she explained, also be financing issues in managing the cash flows to R&M’s

many subcontractors. Although the major banks financed the client through a lending syndicate, R&M’s usual bank

said it was wary of lending directly to R&M for the Giant Dam Project because of the potential negative publicity that

might result. Another bank said it would provide R&M with its early stage working capital needs on the understanding

that its involvement in financing R&M to undertake the Giant Dam Project was not disclosed. A press statement from

Stop-the-dam said that it would do all it could to discover R&M’s financial lenders and publicly expose them. Sally

told the R&M board that some debt financing would be essential until the first interim payments from the client

became available.

When it was announced that R&M had won the contract to build the Giant Dam Project, some of its institutional

shareholders contacted Richard Markovnikoff, the chairman. They wanted reassurance that the company had fully

taken the environmental issues and other risks into account. One fund manager asked if Mr Markovnikoff could

explain the sustainability implications of the project to assess whether R&M shares were still suitable for his

environmentally sensitive clients. Mr Markovnikoff said, through the company’s investor relations department, that he

intended to give a statement at the next annual general meeting (AGM) that he hoped would address these

environmental concerns. He would also, he said, make a statement on the importance of confidentiality in the

financing of the early stage working capital needs.

(a) Any large project such as the Giant Dam Project has a number of stakeholders.

Required:

(i) Define the terms ‘stakeholder’ and ‘stakeholder claim’, and identify from the case FOUR of R&M’s

external stakeholders as it carries out the Giant Dam Project; (6 marks)

3 Spica, one of the director shareholders of Acrux Ltd, has been in dispute with the other shareholders over plans to

expand the company’s activities overseas. In order to resolve the position it has been agreed that Spica will sell her

shares back to the company. Once the purchase of her shares has taken place, the company intends to establish a

number of branches overseas and acquire a shareholding in a number of companies that are resident and trade in

overseas countries.

The following information has been obtained from client files and meetings with the parties involved.

Acrux Ltd:

– An unquoted UK resident company.

– Share capital consists of 50,000 ordinary shares issued at ￡1·90 per share in July 2000.

– None of the other shareholders has any connection with Spica.

The purchase of own shares:

– The company will purchase all of Spica’s shares for ￡8 per share.

– The transaction will take place by the end of 2008.

Spica:

– Purchased 8,000 shares in Acrux Ltd for ￡2 per share on 30 September 2003.

– Has no income in the tax year 2008/09.

– Has chargeable capital gains in the tax year 2008/09 of ￡3,800.

– Has houses in the UK and the country of Solaris and divides her time between them.

Investment in non-UK resident companies:

– Acrux Ltd will acquire between 15% and 20% of each of the non-UK resident companies.

– The companies will not be controlled foreign companies as the rates of tax in the overseas countries will be

between 23% and 42%.

– There may or may not be a double tax treaty between the UK and the overseas countries in which the companies

are resident. Where there is a treaty, it will be based on the OECD model treaty.

– None of the countries concerned levy withholding tax on dividends paid to UK companies.

– The directors of Acrux Ltd are concerned that the rate of tax suffered on the profits of the overseas companies

will be very high as they will be taxed in both the overseas country and in the UK.

Required:

(a) (i) Prepare detailed calculations to determine the most beneficial tax treatment of the payment Spica will

receive for her shares; (7 marks)