如果你是福建省考生，教你几招，轻松让你在ACCA考试中保持专注!

正确答案：D
630,000 – 4,320 – 440

正确答案：
(b) The advantage of Hira Ltd not claiming any capital allowances
In the year ending 31 March 2007 Hira Ltd expects to make a tax adjusted trading loss, before deduction of capital
allowances, of ￡55,000 and to surrender the maximum amount possible of trading losses to Belgrove Ltd and Dovedale Ltd.
For the first nine months of the year from 1 April 2006 to 31 December 2006 Hira Ltd is in a loss relief group with Belgrove
Ltd. The maximum surrender to Belgrove Ltd for this period is the lower of:
– the available loss of ￡41,250 (￡55,000 x 9/12); and
– the profits chargeable to corporation tax of Belgrove of ￡28,500 (￡38,000 x 9/12).
i.e. ￡28,500. This leaves losses of ￡12,750 (￡41,250 – ￡28,500) unrelieved.
For the remaining three months from 1 January 2007 to 31 March 2007 Hira Ltd is a consortium company because at least
75% of its share capital is owned by companies, each of which own at least 5%. It can surrender ￡8,938 (￡55,000 x 3/12
x 65%) to Dovedale Ltd and ￡4,812 (￡55,000 x 3/12 x 35%) to Belgrove Ltd as both companies have sufficient taxable
profits to offset the losses. Accordingly, there are no losses remaining from the three-month period.
The unrelieved losses from the first nine months must be carried forward as Hira Ltd has no income or gains in that year or
the previous year. However, the losses cannot be carried forward beyond 1 January 2007 (the date of the change of
ownership of Hira Ltd) if there is a major change in the nature or conduct of the trade of Hira Ltd. Even if the losses can be
carried forward, the earliest year in which they can be relieved is the year ending 31 March 2009 as Hira Ltd is expected to
make a trading loss in the year ending 31 March 2008.
Any capital allowances claimed by Hira Ltd in the year ending 31 March 2007 would increase the tax adjusted trading loss
for that year and consequently the unrelieved losses arising in the first nine months.
If the capital allowances are not claimed, the whole of the tax written down value brought forward of ￡96,000 would be
carried forward to the year ending 31 March 2008 thus increasing the capital allowances and the tax adjusted trading loss,
for that year. By not claiming any capital allowances, Hira Ltd can effectively transfer a current period trading loss, which
would be created by capital allowances, of ￡24,000 (25% x ￡96,000) from the year ending 31 March 2007 to the following
year where it can be surrendered to the two consortium members.

正确答案：

(b) IAS21 ‘The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates’ requires goodwill arising on the acquisition of a foreign operation
and fair value adjustments to acquired assets and liabilities to be treated as belonging to the foreign operation. They should
be expressed in the functional currency of the foreign operation and translated at the closing rate at each balance sheet date.
Effectively goodwill is treated as a foreign currency asset which is retranslated at the closing rate. In this case the goodwillarising on the acquisition of Briars would be treated as follows:

At 31 May 2006, the goodwill will be retranslated at 2·5 euros to the dollar to give a figure of $4·4 million. Therefore this
will be the figure for goodwill in the balance sheet and an exchange loss of $1·4 million recorded in equity (translation
reserve). The impairment of goodwill will be expensed in profit or loss to the value of $1·2 million. (The closing rate has been
used to translate the impairment; however, there may be an argument for using the average rate.)
The loan to Briars will effectively be classed as a financial liability measured at amortised cost. It is the default category for
financial liabilities that do not meet the definition of financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. For most entities,
most financial liabilities will fall into this category. When a financial liability is recognised initially in the balance sheet, the
liability is measured at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which a liability can be settled, between knowledgeable, willing
parties in an arm’s length transaction. In other words, fair value is an actual or estimated transaction price on the reporting
date for a transaction taking place between unrelated parties that have adequate information about the asset or liability being
measured.
Since fair value is a market transaction price, on initial recognition fair value generally is assumed to equal the amount of
consideration paid or received for the financial asset or financial liability. Accordingly, IAS39 specifies that the best evidence
of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition generally is the transaction price. However for longer-term
receivables or payables that do not pay interest or pay a below-market interest, IAS39 does require measurement initially at
the present value of the cash flows to be received or paid.
Thus in Briars financial statements the following entries will be made:

正确答案：
(b) The main disagreement over a shift to fair value measurement is the debate over relevance versus reliability. It is argued that
historical cost financial statements are not relevant because they do not provide information about current exchange values
for the entity’s assets which to some extent determine the value of the shares of the entity. However, the information provided
by fair values may be unreliable because it may not be based on arm’s-length transactions. Proponents of fair value
accounting argue that this measurement is more relevant to decision makers even if it is less reliable and would produce
balance sheets that are more representative of a company’s value. However it can be argued that relevant information that is
unreliable is of no use to an investor. One advantage of historical cost financial information is that it produces earnings
numbers that are not based on appraisals or other valuation techniques. Therefore, the income statement is less likely to be
subject to manipulation by management. In addition, historical cost balance sheet figures comprise actual purchase prices,
not estimates of current values that can be altered to improve various financial ratios. Because historical cost statements rely
less on estimates and more on ‘hard’ numbers, it can be said that historical cost financial statements are more reliable than
fair value financial statements. Furthermore, fair value measurements may be less reliable than historical costs measures
because fair value accounting provides management with the opportunity to manipulate the reported profit for the period.
Developing reliable methods of measuring fair value so that investors trust the information reported in financial statements is
critical.
Fair value measurement could be said to be more relevant than historical cost as it is based on market values and not entity
specific measurement on initial recognition, so long as fair values can be reliably measured. Generally the fair value of the
consideration given or received (effectively historical cost) also represents the fair value of the item at the date of initial
recognition. However there are many cases where significant differences between historical cost and fair value can arise on
initial recognition.
Historical cost does not purport to measure the value received. It cannot be assumed that the price paid can be recovered in
the market place. Hence the need for some additional measure of recoverable value and impairment testing of assets.
Historical cost can be an entity specific measurement. The recorded historical cost can be lower or higher than its fair value.
For example the valuation of inventory is determined by the costing method adopted by the entity and this can vary from
entity to entity. Historical cost often requires the allocation of costs to an asset or liability. These costs are attributed to assets,
liabilities and expenses, and are often allocated arbitrarily. An example of this is self constructed assets. Rules set out in
accounting standards help produce some consistency of historical cost measurements but such rules cannot improve
representational faithfulness.
Another problem with historical cost arises as regards costs incurred prior to an asset being recognised. Historical costs
recorded from development expenditure cannot be capitalised if they are incurred prior to the asset meeting the recognition
criteria in IAS38 ‘Intangible Assets’. Thus the historical cost amount does not represent the fair value of the consideration
given to create the asset.
The relevance of historical cost has traditionally been based on a cost/revenue matching principle. The objective has been to
expense the cost of the asset when the revenue to which the asset has contributed is recognised. If the historical cost of the
asset differs from its fair value on initial recognition then the matching process in future periods becomes arbitrary. The
measurement of assets at fair value will enhance the matching objective. Historical cost may have use in predicting future
net reported income but does not have any necessary implications for future cash flows. Fair value does embody the market’s
expectations for those future cash flows.
However, historical cost is grounded in actual transaction amounts and has existed for many years to the extent that it is
supported by practical experience and familiarity. Historical cost is accepted as a reliable measure especially where no other
relevant measurement basis can be applied.