重庆市考生：ACCA考试内容是什么？难度和专业课相比怎样？

正确答案：
(ii) 10-year guarantee
$18·2 million stainless steel cookware sales amount to 43·1% of revenue and are therefore material. However, the
guarantee was only introduced three months into the year, say in respect of $13·6 million (3/4 × 18·2 million) i.e.
approximately 32% of revenue.
The draft note disclosure could indicate that Petrie’s management believes that Petrie has a legal obligation in respect
of the guarantee, that is not remote and likely to be material (otherwise no disclosure would have been required).
A best estimate of the obligation amounting to 5% profit before tax (or more) is likely to be considered material, i.e.
$90,000 (or more). Therefore, if it is probable that 0·66% of sales made under guarantee will be returned for refund,
this would require a warranty provision that would be material.
Tutorial note: The return of 2/3% of sales over a 10-year period may well be probable.
Clearly there is a present obligation as a result of a past obligating event for sales made during the nine months to
31 March 2007. Although the likelihood of outflow under the guarantee is likely to be insignificant (even remote) it is
probable that some outflow will be needed to settle the class of such obligations.
The note in the financial statements is disclosing this matter as a contingent liability. This term encompasses liabilities
that do not meet the recognition criteria (e.g. of reliable measurement in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent
Liabilities and Contingent Assets).
However, it is extremely rare that no reliable estimate can be made (IAS 37) – the use of estimates being essential to
the preparation of financial statements. Petrie’s management must make a best estimate of the cost of refunds/repairs
under guarantee taking into account, for example:
■ the proportion of sales during the nine months to 31 March 2007 that have been returned under guarantee at the
balance sheet date (and in the post balance sheet event period);
■ the average age of cookware showing a defect;
■ the expected cost of a replacement item (as a refund of replacement is more likely than a repair, say).
If management do not make a provision for the best estimate of the obligation the audit opinion should be qualified
‘except for’ non-compliance with IAS 37 (no provision made). The disclosure made in the note to the financial
statements, however detailed, is not a substitute for making the provision.
Tutorial note: No marks will be awarded for suggesting that an emphasis of matter of paragraph would be appropriate
(drawing attention to the matter more fully explained in the note).
Management’s claim that the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability does not give rise to a limitation
on scope on the audit. The auditor has sufficient evidence of the non-compliance with IAS 37 and disagrees with it.

正确答案：
(a)Valuationofaviationinventory–ReviewGAAPtoensurethattherearenoexceptionsforaviationfuelorinventoryheldforemergencypurposeswhichwouldsuggestamarketvaluationshouldbeused.–Calculatethedifferenceinvaluation.Theerrorininventoryvaluationis$105*6,000barrelsor$630k,whichisamaterialamountcomparedtoprofit.–Reviewprioryearworkingpaperstodeterminewhetherasimilarsituationoccurredlastyearandascertaintheoutcomeatthatstage.–Discussthematterwiththedirectorstoobtainreasonswhytheybelievethatmarketvalueshouldbeusedfortheinventorythisyear.–Warnthedirectorsthatinyouropinion,aviationfuelshouldbevaluedatthelowerofcostornetrealisablevalue(thatis$15/barrel)andthatusingmarketvaluewillresultinamodificationtotheauditreport.–Ifthedirectorsnowamendthefinancialstatementstoshowinventoryvaluedatcost,thenconsidermentioningtheissueintheweaknessletteranddonotmodifytheauditreportinrespectofthismatter.–Ifthedirectorswillnotamendthefinancialstatements,quantifytheeffectofthedisagreementinthevaluationmethod–thesumof$630,000ismaterialtothefinancialstatementsasTyeCo’sincomestatementfigureisdecreasedfromasmalllosstoalossof$130,000althoughnetassetsdecreasebyonlyabout0·3%.–ObtainamanagementrepresentationletterfromthedirectorsofTyeCoconfirmingthatmarketvalueistobeusedfortheemergencyinventoryofaviationfuel.–Ifthedirectorswillnotamendthefinancialstatements,drafttherelevantsectionsoftheauditreport,showingaqualificationonthegroundsofdisagreementwiththeaccountingpolicyforvaluationofinventory.(b)(i)ExternalauditorresponsibilitiesregardingdetectionoffraudOverallresponsibilityofauditorTheexternalauditorisprimarilyresponsiblefortheauditopiniononthefinancialstatementsfollowingtheinternationalauditingstandards(ISAs).ISA240(Redrafted)TheAuditor’sResponsibilitiesRelatingtoFraudinanAuditofFinancialStatementsisrelevanttoauditworkregardingfraud.Themainfocusofauditworkisthereforetoensurethatthefinancialstatementsshowatrueandfairview.Thedetectionoffraudisthereforenotthemainfocusoftheexternalauditor’swork.Anauditorisresponsibleforobtainingreasonableassurancethatthefinancialstatementsasawholearefreefrommaterialmisstatement,whethercausedbyfraudorerror.Theauditorisresponsibleformaintaininganattitudeofprofessionalscepticismthroughouttheaudit,consideringthepotentialformanagementoverrideofcontrolsandrecognisingthefactthatauditproceduresthatareeffectivefordetectingerrormaynotbeeffectivefordetectingfraud.MaterialityISA240statesthattheauditorshouldreduceauditrisktoanacceptablylowlevel.Therefore,inreachingtheauditopinionandperformingauditwork,theexternalauditortakesintoaccounttheconceptofmateriality.Inotherwords,theexternalauditorisnotresponsibleforcheckingallthetransactions.Auditproceduresareplannedtohaveareasonablelikelihoodofidentifyingmaterialfraud.DiscussionamongtheauditteamAdiscussionisrequiredamongtheengagementteamplacingparticularemphasisonhowandwheretheentity’sfinancialstatementsmaybesusceptibletomaterialmisstatementduetofaud,includinghowfraudmightoccur.IdentificationoffraudInsituationswheretheexternalauditordoesdetectfraud,thentheauditorwillneedtoconsidertheimplicationsfortheentireaudit.Inotherwords,theexternalauditorhasaresponsibilitytoextendtestingintootherareasbecausetheriskofprovidinganincorrectauditopinionwillhaveincreased.(ii)GroupstoreportfraudtoReporttoauditcommitteeDisclosethesituationtotheauditcommitteeastheyarechargedwithmaintainingahighstandardofgovernanceinthecompany.Thecommitteeshouldbeabletodiscussthesituationwiththedirectorsandrecommendthattheytakeappropriateactione.g.amendthefinancialstatements.ReporttogovernmentAsTyeCoisactingunderagovernmentcontract,andtheover-statementofinventorywillmeanTyeCobreachesthatcontract(thereportedprofitbecomingaloss),thentheauditormayhavetoreportthesituationdirectlytothegovernment.TheauditorofTyeConeedstoreviewthecontracttoconfirmthereportingrequiredunderthatcontract.ReporttomembersIfthefinancialstatementsdonotshowatrueandfairviewthentheauditorneedstoreportthisfacttothemembersofTyeCo.Theauditreportwillbequalifiedwithanexceptfororadverseopinion(dependingonmateriality)andinformationconcerningthereasonforthedisagreementgiven.Inthiscasetheauditorislikelytostatefactuallytheproblemofinventoryquantitiesbeingincorrect,ratherthanstatingorimplyingthatthedirectorsareinvolvedinfraud.ReporttoprofessionalbodyIftheauditorisuncertainastothecorrectcourseofaction,advicemaybeobtainedfromtheauditor’sprofessionalbody.Dependingontheadvicereceived,theauditormaysimplyreporttothemembersintheauditreport,althoughresignationandtheconveningofageneralmeetingisanotherreportingoption.(iii)Intimidationthreat–safeguardsInresponsetotheimpliedthreatofdismissaliftheauditreportismodifiedregardingthepotentialfraud/error,thefollowingsafeguardsareavailabletotheauditor.DiscusswithauditcommitteeThesituationcanbediscussedwiththeauditcommittee.Astheauditcommitteeshouldcomprisenon-executivedirectors,theywillbeabletodiscussthesituationwiththefinancedirectorandpointoutclearlytheauditor’sopinion.Theycanalsoremindthedirectorsasawholethattheappointmentoftheauditorrestswiththemembersontherecommendationoftheauditcommittee.Iftherecommendationoftheauditcommitteeisrejectedbytheboard,goodcorporategovernancerequiresdisclosureofthereasonforrejection.ObtainsecondpartnerreviewTheengagementpartnercanaskasecondpartnertoreviewtheworkingpapersandotherevidencerelatingtotheissueofpossiblefraud.Whilethisactiondoesnotresolvetheissue,itdoesprovideadditionalassurancethatthefindingsandactionsoftheengagementpartnerarevalid.ResignationIfthematterisserious,thentheauditorcanconsiderresignationratherthannotbeingre-appointed.Resignationhastheadditionalsafeguardthattheauditorcannormallyrequirethedirectorstoconveneageneralmeetingtoconsiderthecircumstancesoftheresignation.

正确答案：
(c) Temporary staff assignments
Lending staff on a temporary basis to an audit client will create the following ethical threats:
Management involvement – Assuming that the manager or senior is seconded to the finance function of the audit client, it
is likely that the individual would be in some way involved in decision making in relation to the accounting systems,
management accounts or financial statements.
Self-review – On returning to the audit firm, a seconded individual could be a member of the audit team for the client to
which they seconded. This would create a self- review threat whereby they would be unlikely to be critical of their own work
performed or decisions made. Even if the individual were not assigned to the client where they performed a temporary
assignment, the audit team assigned may tend to over rely on areas worked on by a colleague during the period of their
temporary assignment.
Familiarity – if the individual is working at the client at any time during the audit, there will be a familiarity threat, whereby
audit team members will be unlikely to sufficiently challenge, and therefore not exercise enough professional scepticism when
dealing with work performed by the seconded individual.
In addition, due to the over-staffing problem of Becker & Co, the seconded individuals may feel that if they were not on the
secondment, they could be made redundant. This may cause them to act in such as way as not to jeopardise the secondment,
even if the action were not in the best interests of the firm.
The threats discussed above are increased where a senior person likely to make significant decisions is involved with the
temporary assignment, as in this case where audit managers or seniors will be the subjects of the proposed secondment.
In practice, assistance can be provided to clients, especially in emergency situations, but only on the understanding that the
firm’s personnel will not be involved with:
– Making management decisions,
– Approving or signing agreements or similar documents, and
– Having the authority to enter into commitments on behalf of the company.
In addition, the individual seconded to a client should not then be involved in any way with the audit of that client when they
return to the audit firm. This may be a difficult area, as presumably the client would prefer to have an individual seconded
to them who has knowledge and experience of their business, i.e. a member of the audit team, and most likely in this scenario
to be the audit manager. If this were the case the manager would then have to be reassigned to a different client, causing
internal problems for the audit firm. This problem is likely to outweigh any benefits, financial or otherwise, to Becker & Co.
If the temporary staff assignment were to a non-finance department of the client then the threats would be reduced.
If Becker & Co decides to go ahead with the secondment programme, the firm must ensure that the staff are suitably
experienced and qualified to carry out the work given to them by the client. There could be a risk to the reputation of Becker
& Co if the seconded staff are not competent or do not perform. as well as expected by the client.
One advantage of a secondment is that the individual concerned can benefit from exposure to a different type of work and
work environment. This will provide some valuable insights into accounting within a business and the individual may bring
some new skills and ideas back into the audit firm.
However, the staff seconded could be offered a permanent position at the client. This would lead to the loss of key members
of staff, and be detrimental for Becker & Co in the long run.
The other benefit for the audit firm is that a programme of secondments will ease the problem of an over-staffed audit
department, and should have cash flow benefits.
Tutorial note: In answering this question it is relevant to briefly mention corporate governance implications i.e. the client may
not be able to accept the services offered by their auditor for ethical, particularly objectivity, reasons.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Matters to consider
Materiality
The receivable represents only 0·2% (25,000/12 million x 100) of total assets so is immaterial in monetary terms.
However, the details of the transaction could make it material by nature.
The amount is outstanding from a company under the control of Pulp Co’s chairman. Readers of the financial statements
would be interested to know the details of this transaction, which currently is not disclosed. Elements of the transaction
could be subject to bias, specifically the repayment terms, which appear to be beyond normal commercial credit terms.
Paul Sheffield may have used his influence over the two companies to ‘engineer’ the transaction. Disclosure is necessary
due to the nature of the transaction, the monetary value is irrelevant.
A further matter to consider is whether this is a one-off transaction, or indicative of further transactions between the two
companies.
Relevant accounting standard
The definitions in IAS 24 must be carefully considered to establish whether this actually constitutes a related party
transaction. The standard specifically states that two entities are not necessarily related parties just because they have
a director or other member of key management in common. The audit senior states that Jarvis Co is controlled by Peter
Sheffield, who is also the chairman of Pulp Co. It seems that Peter Sheffield is in a position of control/significant influence
over the two companies (though this would have to be clarified through further audit procedures), and thus the two
companies are likely to be perceived as related.
IAS 24 requires full disclosure of the following in respect of related party transactions:
– the nature of the related party relationship,
– the amount of the transaction,
– the amount of any balances outstanding including terms and conditions, details of security offered, and the nature
of consideration to be provided in settlement,
– any allowances for receivables and associated expense.
There is currently a breach of IAS 24 as no disclosure has been made in the notes to the financial statements. If not
amended, the audit opinion on the financial statements should be qualified with an ‘except for’ disagreement. In
addition, if practicable, the auditor’s report should include the information that would have been included in the financial
statements had the requirements of IAS 24 been adhered to.
Valuation and classification of the receivable
A receivable should only be recognised if it will give rise to future economic benefit, i.e. a future cash inflow. It appears
that the receivable is long outstanding – if the amount is unlikely to be recovered then it should be written off as a bad
debt and the associated expense recognised. It is possible that assets and profits are overstated.
Although a representation has been received indicating that the amount will be paid to Pulp Co, the auditor should be
sceptical of this claim given that the same representation was given last year, and the amount was not subsequently
recovered. The $25,000 could be recoverable in the long term, in which case the receivable should be reclassified as
a non-current asset. The amount advanced to Jarvis Co could effectively be an investment rather than a short term
receivable. Correct classification on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) is crucial for the financial
statements to properly show the liquidity position of the company at the year end.
Tutorial note: Digressions into management imposing a limitation in scope by withholding evidence are irrelevant in this
case, as the scenario states that the only evidence that the auditors have asked for is a management representation.
There is no indication in the scenario that the auditors have asked for, and been refused any evidence.