山东省考生想知道的ACCA国际会计师考试的几种题型

正确答案：
2 IFRS3 (Revised) is a further development of the acquisition model and represents a significant change in accounting for business
combinations. The consideration is the amount paid for the business acquired and is measured at fair value. Consideration will
include cash, assets, contingent consideration, equity instruments, options and warrants. It also includes the fair value of all equity
interests that the acquirer may have held previously in the acquired business. The principles to be applied are that:
(a) a business combination occurs only in respect of the transaction that gives one entity control of another
(b) the identifiable net assets of the acquiree are re-measured to their fair value on the date of the acquisition
(c) NCI are measured on the date of acquisition under one of the two options permitted by IFRS3 (Revised).
An equity interest previously held in the acquiree which qualified as an associate under IAS28 is similarly treated as if it were
disposed of and reacquired at fair value on the acquisition date. Accordingly, it is re-measured to its acquisition date fair value, and
any resulting gain or loss compared to its carrying amount under IAS28 is recognised in profit or loss. Thus the 30% holding in
the associate which was previously held will be included in the consideration. If the carrying amount of the interest in the associate
is not held at fair value at the acquisition date, the interest should be measured to fair value and the resulting gain or loss should
be recognised in profit or loss. The business combination has effectively been achieved in stages.
The fees payable in transaction costs are not deemed to be part of the consideration paid to the seller of the shares. They are not
assets of the purchased business that are recognised on acquisition. Therefore, they should be expensed as incurred and the
services received. Transaction costs relating to the issue of debt or equity, if they are directly attributable, will not be expensed but
deducted from debt or equity on initial recognition.
It is common for part of the consideration to be contingent upon future events. Marrgrett wishes some of the existing
shareholders/employees to remain in the business and has, therefore, offered share options as an incentive to these persons. The
issue is whether these options form. part of the purchase consideration or are compensation for post-acquisition services. The
conditions attached to the award will determine the accounting treatment. In this case there are employment conditions and,
therefore, the options should be treated as compensation and valued under IFRS2 ‘Share based payment’. Thus a charge will
appear in post-acquisition earnings for employee services as the options were awarded to reward future services of employees
rather than to acquire the business.
The additional shares to a fixed value of $50,000 are contingent upon the future returns on capital employed. Marrgrett only wants
to make additional payments if the business is successful. All consideration should be fair valued at the date of acquisition,
including the above contingent consideration. The contingent consideration payable in shares where the number of shares varies
to give the recipient a fixed value ($50,000) meets the definition of a financial liability under IAS32 ‘Financial Instruments:
Presentation’. As a result the liability will have to be fair valued and any subsequent remeasurement will be recognised in the
income statement. There is no requirement under IFRS3 (Revised) for the payments to be probable.
Intangible assets should be recognised on acquisition under IFRS3 (Revised). These include trade names, domain names, and
non-competition agreements. Thus these assets will be recognised and goodwill effectively reduced. The additional clarity in
IFRS3 (Revised) could mean that more intangible assets will be recognised on acquisition. As a result of this, the post-combination
income statement may have more charges for amortisation of the intangibles than was previously the case.
The revised standard gives entities the option, on a transaction by transaction basis, to measure non-controlling interests (NCI) at
the fair value of the proportion of identifiable net assets or at full fair value. The first option results in measurement of goodwill on
consolidation which would normally be little different from the previous standard. The second approach records goodwill on the
NCI as well as on the acquired controlling interest. Goodwill is the residual but may differ from that under the previous standard
because of the nature of the valuation of the consideration as previously held interests are fair valued and also because goodwill
can be measured in the above two ways (full goodwill and partial goodwill). The standard gives entities a choice for each separate
business combination of recognising full or partial goodwill. Recognising full goodwill will increase reported net assets and may
result in any future impairment of goodwill being of greater value. Measuring NCI at fair value may have some difficulties but
goodwill impairment testing may be easier under full goodwill as there is no need to gross-up goodwill for partly-owned
subsidiaries. The type of consideration does not affect goodwill regardless of how the payment is structured. Consideration is
recognised in total at its fair value at the date of acquisition. The form. of the consideration will not affect goodwill but the structure
of the payments can affect post-acquisition profits. Contingent payments which are deemed to be debt instruments will be
remeasured at each reporting date with the change going to the income statement.
Marrgrett has a maximum period of 12 months to finalise the acquisition accounting but will not be able to recognise the
re-organisation provision at the date of the business combination. The ability of the acquirer to recognise a liability for reducing or
changing the activities of the acquiree is restricted. A restructuring provision can only be recognised in a business combination
when the acquiree has at the acquisition date, an existing liability which complies with IAS37 ‘Provisions, contingent liabilities and
contingent assets’. These conditions are unlikely to exist at the acquisition date. A restructuring plan that is conditional on the
completion of a business combination is not recognised in accounting for the acquisition but the expense will be met against
post-acquisition earnings.
IAS27 (Revised) uses the economic entity model whereas previous practice used the parent company approach. The economic
entity model treats all providers of equity capital as shareholders of the entity even where they are not shareholders in the parent.
A partial disposal of an interest in a subsidiary in which control is still retained is seen as a treasury transaction and accounted for
in equity. It does not result in a gain or loss but an increase or decrease in equity. However, where a partial disposal in a subsidiary
results in a loss of control but the retention of an interest in the form. of an associate, then a gain or loss is recognised in the whole
interest. A gain or loss is recognised on the portion that has been sold, and a holding gain or loss is recognised on the interest
retained being the difference between the book value and fair value of the interest. Both gains/losses are recognised in the income
statement.

正确答案：
(c) There are many reasons that could be discussed in support of the view that net present value (NPV) is superior to other
investment appraisal methods.
NPV considers cash flows
This is the reason why NPV is preferred to return on capital employed (ROCE), since ROCE compares average annual
accounting profit with initial or average capital invested. Financial management always prefers cash flows to accounting profit,
since profit is seen as being open to manipulation. Furthermore, only cash flows are capable of adding to the wealth of
shareholders in the form. of increased dividends. Both internal rate of return (IRR) and Payback also consider cash flows.
NPV considers the whole of an investment project
In this respect NPV is superior to Payback, which measures the time it takes for an investment project to repay the initial
capital invested. Payback therefore considers cash flows within the payback period and ignores cash flows outside of the
payback period. If Payback is used as an investment appraisal method, projects yielding high returns outside of the payback
period will be wrongly rejected. In practice, however, it is unlikely that Payback will be used alone as an investment appraisal
method.
NPV considers the time value of money
NPV and IRR are both discounted cash flow (DCF) models which consider the time value of money, whereas ROCE and
Payback do not. Although Discounted Payback can be used to appraise investment projects, this method still suffers from the
criticism that it ignores cash flows outside of the payback period. Considering the time value of money is essential, since
otherwise cash flows occurring at different times cannot be distinguished from each other in terms of value from the
perspective of the present time.
NPV is an absolute measure of return
NPV is seen as being superior to investment appraisal methods that offer a relative measure of return, such as IRR and ROCE,
and which therefore fail to reflect the amount of the initial investment or the absolute increase in corporate value. Defenders
of IRR and ROCE respond that these methods offer a measure of return that is understandable by managers and which can
be intuitively compared with economic variables such as interest rates and inflation rates.
NPV links directly to the objective of maximising shareholders’ wealth
The NPV of an investment project represents the change in total market value that will occur if the investment project is
accepted. The increase in wealth of each shareholder can therefore be measured by the increase in the value of their
shareholding as a percentage of the overall issued share capital of the company. Other investment appraisal methods do not
have this direct link with the primary financial management objective of the company.
NPV always offers the correct investment advice
With respect to mutually exclusive projects, NPV always indicates which project should be selected in order to achieve the
maximum increase on corporate value. This is not true of IRR, which offers incorrect advice at discount rates which are less
than the internal rate of return of the incremental cash flows. This problem can be overcome by using the incremental yield
approach.
NPV can accommodate changes in the discount rate
While NPV can easily accommodate changes in the discount rate, IRR simply ignores them, since the calculated internal rate
of return is independent of the cost of capital in all time periods.
NPV has a sensible re-investment assumption
NPV assumes that intermediate cash flows are re-invested at the company’s cost of capital, which is a reasonable assumption
as the company’s cost of capital represents the average opportunity cost of the company’s providers of finance, i.e. it
represents a rate of return which exists in the real world. By contrast, IRR assumes that intermediate cash flows are reinvested
at the internal rate of return, which is not an investment rate available in practice,
NPV can accommodate non-conventional cash flows
Non-conventional cash flows exist when negative cash flows arise during the life of the project. For each change in sign there
is potentially one additional internal rate of return. With non-conventional cash flows, therefore, IRR can suffer from the
technical problem of giving multiple internal rates of return.

正确答案：
(b) There are several issues that must be addressed as a matter of urgency:
Extra work must be planned to discover the extent of the breakdown in internal controls that occurred during the year. It is
important to decide whether the errors were isolated, or continued through the accounting period and whether similar errors
have occurred in other areas e.g. cash receipts from existing customers or cash payments. A review of the working papers of
the internal audit team should be carried out as soon as possible. The materiality of the errors should be documented.
Errors discovered in the accounting systems will have serious implications for the planned audit approach of new customer
deposits. Nate & Co must plan to expand audit testing on this area as control risk is high. Cash deposits will represent a
significant class of transaction in CF Co. A more detailed substantive approach than used in prior year audits may be needed
in this material area if limited reliance can be placed on internal controls.
A combination of the time spent investigating the reasons for the errors, their materiality, and a detailed substantive audit on
this area means that the audit is likely to take longer than previously anticipated. This may have cost and recoverability
implications. Extra staff may need to be assigned to the audit team, and the deadline for completion of audit procedures may
need to be extended. This will need to be discussed with CF Co.
Due to the increased audit risk, Nate & Co should consider increasing review procedures throughout the audit. In addition CF
Co is likely to be a highly regulated company as it operates in financial services, increasing possible attention focused on the
audit opinion. These two factors indicate that a second partner review would be recommended.
A separate issue is that of Jin Sayed offering advice to the internal audit team. The first problem raised is that of quality control.
A new and junior member of the audit team should be subject to close direction and supervision which does not appear to
have been the case during this assignment.
Secondly, Jin Sayed should not have offered advice to the internal audit team. On being made aware of the errors, he should
have alerted a senior member of the audit team, who then would have decided the action to be taken. This implies that he
does not understand the limited extent of his responsibilities as a junior member of the audit team. Nate & Co may wish to
review the training provided to new members of staff, as it should be made clear when matters should be reported to a senior,
and when matters can be dealt with by the individual.
Thirdly, Jin Sayed must be questioned to discover what exactly he advised the internal audit team to do. Despite his academic
qualification, he has little practical experience in the financial information systems of CF Co. He may have given inappropriate
advice, and it will be crucial to confirm that no action has been taken by the internal audit team.
The audit partner should consider if Nate & Co are at risk because of the advice that has been provided by Jin Sayed. As he
is a member of the audit team, his advice would be considered by the client as advice offered by Nate & Co, and the partner
should ascertain by discussion with the client whether this advice has been acted upon.
Finally Nate & Co should consider whether as a firm they could provide the review of the financial information technology
system, as requested by CF Co. IFAC’s Code of Ethics, and ACCA’s Code of Ethics and Conduct places restrictions on the
provision of non-audit services. Nate & Co must be clear in what exactly the ‘review’ will involve.
Providing a summary of weaknesses in the system, with appropriate recommendations is considered part of normal audit
procedures. However, given the errors that have arisen in the year, CF Co may require Nate & Co to design and implement
changes to the system. This would constitute a self-review threat and should only be considered if significant safeguards are
put in place, for example, using a separate team to provide the non-audit service and/or having a second partner review of
the work.