想知道ACCA和香港CPA有互免政策吗？进来看看就知道了！

发布时间：2020-04-29

最近很多小伙伴都在问51题库考试学习网ACCA和香港CPA有互免政策吗？今天帮考就为各位小伙伴说说吧！

大家都知道CPA可以免试ACCA考试科目中的9科。那么香港的CPA职称对于ACCA的免试还同样适用吗?下面，51题库考试学习网就给大家简单介绍一下吧;

现在来讲讲他们二者间的历史：

背景：

十几年前ACCA在香港独大，近乎是*10能在香港应考的会计师资格，故除ACCA外是别无选择，可以说早先香港会计界的发展完全仰仗于ACCA。

在05年之前，大家都知道ACCA在香港地区是非常受欢迎的，很重要的原因是它和HKICPA在很早开始(其前身，Hong Kong Society of Accountants时代)就有很便捷的互认协议，以及很多香港当地的学员通过HKSA(HKICPA前身)和ACCA的联合培训项目取得2个Q。不过，这么好的事情，都在05年旧协议到期、新的agreement难产之后画上句号。

06年之后，HKICPA与ACCA的新的agreement难产，加之HKICPA此时又与包括ICAEW在内的GAA成员达成’Reciprocal membership agreement‘，二者很难再回到往日的蜜月关系。

ACCA的地位

ACCA 的受认度在各个地区都不同，一般都无权豁免各地CPA考试，且无签字权，单单持有ACCA不但在香港法律上不能自称「会计师」。

在英国，会计师行业分为两大类：CA Firms与CCA Firms。CA Firm指其老顶有CA (Chartered Accountants)资格，CCA Firm便是大家熟悉的ACCA了，虽然ACCA名字里都有Chartered一字，但若说CA却是专指ICAS及ICAEW会员。

ACCA也属于Royal Chartered 、亦可签发Auditors’ Report，ACCA入会后5年可申请接入CA。

HKICPA地位

目前HKICPA体系是考前要通过Qualification Programme (QP)，当然也可以通过其他认可的英联邦国家(英澳加)以及新马印等地的CPA or CA加考公司法、税法完成full membership。

根据香港法律《专业会计师条例》，只有HKICPA会员才可自称会计师、专业会计师、执业会计师、CPA、Professional Accountant、Certified Accountant等。

所有，ACCA和香港注册会计师HKCPA已经不再有互免了，考生们在浏览信息的时候要分辨清楚*7的消息和已经过时的消息，以免对自己的职业方向选择上造成困扰。

以上就是51题库考试学习网为各位来带的相关内容，希望能对各位小伙伴带来帮助。

下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题，供大家学习参考。

(ii) Compute the annual income tax saving from your recommendation in (i) above as compared with the

situation where Cindy retains both the property and the shares. Identify any other tax implications

arising from your recommendation. Your answer should consider all relevant taxes. (3 marks)

正确答案：

 

(c) Briefly describe the principal audit work to be performed in respect of the carrying amount of the following

items in the balance sheet:

(i) development expenditure on the Fox model; (3 marks)

正确答案：
(c) Principal audit work
(i) Development expenditure on the Fox model
■ Agree opening balance, $6·3 million, to prior year working papers.
■ Physically inspect assembly plant/factory where the Fox is being developed and any vehicles so far manufactured
(e.g. for testing).
■ Substantiate costs incurred during the year, for example:
– goods (e.g. components) and services (e.g. consultants) to purchase invoices;
– labour (e.g. design engineers/technicians, mechanics, test drivers) to the payroll analysis;
– overheads (e.g. depreciation of development buildings and equipment, power, consumables) to
management’s calculation of overhead absorption and underlying cost accounts.
■ Review of internal trials/test drive results (e.g. in reports to management and video recordings of events).
■ Reperform. management’s impairment test of development expenditure. In particular recalculate value in use.
Tutorial note: It is highly unlikely that a reasonable estimate of fair value less costs to sell could be made for so
unique an asset.
■ Substantiate the key assumptions made by management in calculating value in use. For example:
– the level of sales expected when the car is launched to advance orders (this may have fallen with the delay
in the launch);
– the discount rate used to Pavia’s cost of capital;
– projected growth in sales to actual sales growth seen last time a new model was launched.

1 The scientists in the research laboratories of Swan Hill Company (SHC, a public listed company) recently made a very

important discovery about the process that manufactured its major product. The scientific director, Dr Sonja Rainbow,

informed the board that the breakthrough was called the ‘sink method’. She explained that the sink method would

enable SHC to produce its major product at a lower unit cost and in much higher volumes than the current process.

It would also produce lower unit environmental emissions and would substantially improve product quality compared

to its current process and indeed compared to all of the other competitors in the industry.

SHC currently has 30% of the global market with its nearest competitor having 25% and the other twelve producers

sharing the remainder. The company, based in the town of Swan Hill, has a paternalistic management approach and

has always valued its relationship with the local community. Its website says that SHC has always sought to maximise

the benefit to the workforce and community in all of its business decisions and feels a great sense of loyalty to the

Swan Hill locality which is where it started in 1900 and has been based ever since.

As the board considered the implications of the discovery of the sink method, chief executive Nelson Cobar asked

whether Sonja Rainbow was certain that SHC was the only company in the industry that had made the discovery and

she said that she was. She also said that she was certain that the competitors were ‘some years’ behind SHC in their

research.

It quickly became clear that the discovery of the sink method was so important and far reaching that it had the

potential to give SHC an unassailable competitive advantage in its industry. Chief executive Nelson Cobar told board

colleagues that they should clearly understand that the discovery had the potential to put all of SHC’s competitors out

of business and make SHC the single global supplier. He said that as the board considered the options, members

should bear in mind the seriousness of the implications upon the rest of the industry.

Mr Cobar said there were two strategic options. Option one was to press ahead with the huge investment of new plant

necessary to introduce the sink method into the factory whilst, as far as possible, keeping the nature of the sink

technology secret from competitors (the ‘secrecy option’). A patent disclosing the nature of the technology would not

be filed so as to keep the technology secret within SHC. Option two was to file a patent and then offer the use of the

discovery to competitors under a licensing arrangement where SHC would receive substantial royalties for the twentyyear

legal lifetime of the patent (the ‘licensing option’). This would also involve new investment but at a slower pace

in line with competitors. The licence contract would, Mr Cobar explained, include an ‘improvement sharing’

requirement where licensees would be required to inform. SHC of any improvements discovered that made the sink

method more efficient or effective.

The sales director, Edwin Kiama, argued strongly in favour of the secrecy option. He said that the board owed it to

SHC’s shareholders to take the option that would maximise shareholder value. He argued that business strategy was

all about gaining competitive advantage and this was a chance to do exactly that. Accordingly, he argued, the sink

method should not be licensed to competitors and should be pursued as fast as possible. The operations director said

that to gain the full benefits of the sink method with either option would require a complete refitting of the factory and

the largest capital investment that SHC had ever undertaken.

The financial director, Sean Nyngan, advised the board that pressing ahead with investment under the secrecy option

was not without risks. First, he said, he would have to finance the investment, probably initially through debt, and

second, there were risks associated with any large investment. He also informed the board that the licensing option

would, over many years, involve the inflow of ‘massive’ funds in royalty payments from competitors using the SHC’s

patented sink method. By pursuing the licensing option, Sean Nyngan said that they could retain their market

leadership in the short term without incurring risk, whilst increasing their industry dominance in the future through

careful investment of the royalty payments.

The non-executive chairman, Alison Manilla, said that she was looking at the issue from an ethical perspective. She

asked whether SHC had the right, even if it had the ability, to put competitors out of business.

Required:

(a) Assess the secrecy option using Tucker’s model for decision-making. (10 marks)

正确答案：
(a) Tucker’s framework
Is the decision:
Profitable? For SHC, the answer to this question is yes. Profits would potentially be substantially increased by the loss of all
of its competitors and the emergence of SHC, in the short to medium term at least, as a near monopolist.
Legal? The secrecy option poses no legal problems as it is a part of normal competitive behaviour in industries. In some
jurisdictions, legislation forbids monopolies existing in some industries but there is no indication from the case that this
restriction applies to Swan Hill Company.
Fair? The fairness of the secrecy option is a moral judgment. It is probably fair when judged from the perspective of SHC’s
shareholders but the question is the extent to which it is fair to the employees and shareholders of SHC’s competitors.
Right? Again, a question of ethical perspective. Is it right to pursue the subjugation of competitors and the domination of an
industry regardless of the consequences to competitors? The secrecy option may be of the most benefit to the local community
of Swan Hill that the company has traditionally valued.
Sustainable or environmentally sound? The case says that the sink method emits at a lower rate per unit of output than the
existing process but this has little to do with the secrecy option as the rates of emissions would apply if SHC licensed the
process. This is also an argument for the licensing option, however, as environmental emissions would be lower if other
competitors switched to the sink method as well. There may be environmental implications in decommissioning the old plant
to make way for the new sink method investment.

声明：本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传，本网站不拥有所有权，未作人工编辑处理，也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容，欢迎发送邮件至：contact@51tk.com 进行举报，并提供相关证据，工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你，一经查实，本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

站内搜索
热门标签