北上广深四地有哪些ACCA人才福利政策？

正确答案：
(b) Both companies are listed. The only difference will be in the availability of inheritance tax relief – specifically business property
relief (BPR). If Stuart and Rebecca jointly hold in excess of 50% of the share capital of a listed company, BPR will apply at
the rate of 50%. Otherwise, no BPR is available.
Stuart can only buy 1,005,000 (￡422,100/￡0·42) shares in Omikron plc. This represents a shareholding of 2·00%
(1,005,000/50,250,000). As the shares in Omikron plc are listed, a 2% holding will not qualify for BPR.
At the moment, both Stuart and Rebecca own 2,400,000 shares in Omega plc. Their shareholdings are amalgamated for
IHT purposes under the related property rules. With a joint holding of 48%, BPR is not available. A further 200,001 shares
will be required to attain a 50% holding. Assuming Stuart and Rebecca can buy these shares, they must then hold their 50%
interest in the company for the period of at least two years in order to ensure that BPR applies.
On the basis that Stuart is expected to survive for two to three years, he should therefore buy further shares in Omega plc in
order to take advantage of the BPR available.

正确答案：
(d) Chairman’s statement at AGM
Thank you for coming to the annual general meeting of Rowlands & Mendeleev. I would like to make a statement in response
to the concerns that a number of our investors have made in respect to our appointment as the principal contractor for the
prestigious and internationally important Giant Dam Project. We are very pleased and honoured to have won the contract but
as several have observed, this does leave us in a position of having a number of issues and risks to manage.
As a project with obvious environmental implications, the board and I wish to reassure investors that we are aware of these
implications and have taken them into account in our overall assessment of risks associated with the project.
(i) A definition of ‘sustainable development’
One investor asked if we could explain the sustainability issues and I begin with addressing that issue. According to the
well-established Brundtland definition, sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
This definition has implications for energy, land use, natural resources and waste emissions. In a sustainable
development, all of these should be consumed or produced at the same rate they can be renewed or absorbed so as to
prevent leaving future generations with an unwanted legacy of today’s economic activity. We believe that our involvement
in the Giant Dam Project has implications for environmental sustainability and it is to these matters that I now turn.
Tutorial note: other relevant definitions of sustainability will be equally acceptable.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Cost of investment on acquisition of Dylan Co
Matters to consider
According to the schedule provided by the client, the cost of investment comprises three elements. One matter to
consider is whether the cost of investment is complete.
It appears that no legal or professional fees have been included in the cost of investment (unless included within the
heading ‘cash consideration’). Directly attributable costs should be included per IFRS 3 Business Combinations, and
there is a risk that these costs may be expensed in error, leading to understatement of the investment.
The cash consideration of $2·5 million is the least problematical component. The only matter to consider is whether the
cash has actually been paid. Given that Dylan Co was acquired in the last month of the financial year it is possible that
the amount had not been paid before the year end, in which case the amount should be recognised as a current liability
on the statement of financial position (balance sheet). However, this seems unlikely given that normally control of an
acquired company only passes to the acquirer on cash payment.
IFRS 3 states that the cost of investment should be recognised at fair value, which means that deferred consideration
should be discounted to present value at the date of acquisition. If the consideration payable on 31 January 2009 has
not been discounted, the cost of investment, and the corresponding liability, will be overstated. It is possible that the
impact of discounting the $1·5 million payable one year after acquisition would be immaterial to the financial
statements, in which case it would be acceptable to leave the consideration at face value within the cost of investment.
Contingent consideration should be accrued if it is probable to be paid. Here the amount is payable if revenue growth
targets are achieved over the next four years. The auditor must therefore assess the probability of the targets being
achieved, using forecasts and projections of Maxwell Co’s revenue. Such information is inherently subjective, and could
have been manipulated, if prepared by the vendor of Maxwell Co, in order to secure the deal and maximise
consideration. Here it will be crucial to be sceptical when reviewing the forecasts, and the assumptions underlying the
data. The management of Rosie Co should have reached their own opinion on the probability of paying the contingent
consideration, but they may have relied heavily on information provided at the time of the acquisition.
Audit evidence
– Agreement of the monetary value and payment dates of the consideration per the client schedule to legal
documentation signed by vendor and acquirer.
– Agreement of $2·5 million paid to Rosie Co’s bank statement and cash book prior to year end. If payment occurs
after year end confirm that a current liability is recognised on the individual company and consolidated statement
of financial position (balance sheet).
– Board minutes approving the payment.
– Recomputation of discounting calculations applied to deferred and contingent consideration.
– Agreement that the discount rate used is pre-tax, and reflects current market assessment of the time value of money
(e.g. by comparison to Rosie Co’s weighted average cost of capital).
– Revenue and profit projections for the period until January 2012, checked for arithmetic accuracy.
– A review of assumptions used in the projections, and agreement that the assumptions are comparable with the
auditor’s understanding of Dylan Co’s business.
Tutorial note: As the scenario states that Chien & Co has audited Dylan Co for several years, it is reasonable to rely on
their cumulative knowledge and understanding of the business in auditing the revenue projections.