ACCA考试常用公式汇总，值得安徽省考生收藏！

正确答案：
(b) Wallace Co
Being the audit manager, Valerie Hobson is clearly in a position to influence the outcome of the audit. She appears to have
entered into a private commercial transaction with her client. IFAC’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants does not
prohibit such commercial transactions so long as they are:
– In the normal course of business,
– At arm’s length, and
– The value is not material to either party.
In this case the transaction is in the normal course of business for the client. Rental of storage space is not the main business
of Wallace Co, but it appears that this type of transaction is quite common for the company. However the note on the invoice
indicates that a substantial discount has been offered and accepted, and so the transaction is not at arm’s length. The value
is not material to Wallace Co, but could represent a significant discount to normal commercial terms to the audit manager.
Goods and services can be received from an audit client, but only if the value is clearly insignificant.
A self-interest threat is clearly established. Valerie Hobson is benefiting financially from her position as audit manager. She
may compromise the audit approach – which has recently been planned – and furthermore she may compromise the audit
opinion to keep the client happy. She may also have other audit clients where bias could have occurred.
Action to be taken:
– The ethics partner will need to evaluate whether the value of the transaction and the discount received is ‘clearly
insignificant’.
– Her benefiting from a discount on services provided by Wallace Co, which was not disclosed, could result in disciplinary
action.
– Valerie should be removed from the audit immediately, and a new audit manager assigned to Wallace Co.
– The audit planning for year ended 31 May 2008 should be subject to independent review and amendments made where
necessary.
– The transaction should be disclosed to the audit committee of Wallace Co, or to those charged with governance.
– The ethics partner may wish to consider Valerie’s relationships with other audit clients for any evidence of transactions
or other indicators of potential bias.

正确答案：
(iv) Stamp duty and stamp duty land tax
– The purchase of Tethys Ltd will give rise to a liability to ad valorem stamp duty of ￡1,175 (￡235,000 x 0·5%).
The stamp duty must be paid by Saturn Ltd within 30 days of the share transfer in order to avoid interest being
charged. It is not an allowable expense for the purposes of corporation tax.

正确答案：
(c) Fines and penalties
(i) Matters
■ $0·1 million represents 5·6% of profit before tax and is therefore material. However, profit has fallen, and
compared with prior year profit it is less than 5%. So ‘borderline’ material in quantitative terms.
■ Prior year amount was three times as much and represented 13·6% of profit before tax.
■ Even though the payments may be regarded as material ‘by nature’ separate disclosure may not be necessary if,
for example, there are no external shareholders.
■ Treatment (inclusion in cost of sales) should be consistent with prior year (‘The Framework’/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of
Financial Statements’).
■ The reason for the fall in expense. For example, whether due to an improvement in meeting health and safety
regulations and/or incomplete recording of liabilities (understatement).
■ The reason(s) for the breaches. For example, Albreda may have had difficulty implementing new guidelines in
response to stricter regulations.
■ Whether expenditure has been adjusted for in the income tax computation (as disallowed for tax purposes).
■ Management’s attitude to health and safety issues (e.g. if it regards breaches as an acceptable operational practice
or cheaper than compliance).
■ Any references to health and safety issues in other information in documents containing audited financial
statements that might conflict with Albreda incurring these costs.
■ Any cost savings resulting from breaches of health and safety regulations would result in Albreda possessing
proceeds of its own crime which may be a money laundering offence.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A schedule of amounts paid totalling $0·1 million with larger amounts being agreed to the cash book/bank
statements.
■ Review/comparison of current year schedule against prior year for any apparent omissions.
■ Review of after-date cash book payments and correspondence with relevant health and safety regulators (e.g. local
authorities) for liabilities incurred before 30 September 2005.
■ Notes in the prior year financial statements confirming consistency, or otherwise, of the lack of separate disclosure.
■ A ‘signed off’ review of ‘other information’ (i.e. directors’ report, chairman’s statement, etc).
■ Written management representation that there are no fines/penalties other than those which have been reflected in
the financial statements.