想知道CPA与ACCA证书哪个更容易考吗？

正确答案：
(b) Tiltman Co
Tiltman’s total assets at 31 March 2006 represent 29% (16·1/55·2 × 100) of Johnston’s total assets. The subsidiary is
therefore material to Johnston’s consolidated financial statements.
Tutorial note: Tiltman’s profit for the year is not relevant as the acquisition took place just before the year end and will
therefore have no impact on the consolidated income statement. Calculations of the effect on consolidated profit before
taxation are therefore inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(i) Inventory overvaluation
This should have been written off to the income statement in the year to 31 March 2005 and not spread over three
years (contrary to IAS 2 ‘Inventories’).
At 31 March 2006 inventory is overvalued by $0·9m. This represents all Tiltmans’s profit for the year and 5·6% of
total assets and is material. At 31 March 2005 inventory was materially overvalued by $1·8m ($1·7m reported profit
should have been a $0·1m loss).
Tutorial note: 1/3 of the overvaluation was written off in the prior period (i.e. year to 31 March 2005) instead of $2·7m.
That the prior period’s auditor’s report was unmodified means that the previous auditor concurred with an incorrect
accounting treatment (or otherwise gave an inappropriate audit opinion).
As the matter is material a prior period adjustment is required (IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’). $1·8m should be written off against opening reserves (i.e. restated as at 1 April 2005).
(ii) Restructuring provision
$2·3m expense has been charged to Tiltman’s profit and loss in arriving at a draft profit of $0·7m. This is very material.
(The provision represents 14·3% of Tiltman’s total assets and is material to the balance sheet date also.)
The provision for redundancies and onerous contracts should not have been made for the year ended 31 March 2006
unless there was a constructive obligation at the balance sheet date (IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’). So, unless the main features of the restructuring plan had been announced to those affected (i.e.
redundancy notifications issued to employees), the provision should be reversed. However, it should then be disclosed
as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’).
Given the short time (less than one month) between acquisition and the balance sheet it is very possible that a
constructive obligation does not arise at the balance sheet date. The relocation in May was only part of a restructuring
(and could be the first evidence that Johnston’s management has started to implement a restructuring plan).
There is a risk that goodwill on consolidation of Tiltman may be overstated in Johnston’s consolidated financial
statements. To avoid the $2·3 expense having a significant effect on post-acquisition profit (which may be negligible
due to the short time between acquisition and year end), Johnston may have recognised it as a liability in the
determination of goodwill on acquisition.
However, the execution of Tiltman’s restructuring plan, though made for the year ended 31 March 2006, was conditional
upon its acquisition by Johnston. It does not therefore represent, immediately before the business combination, a
present obligation of Johnston. Nor is it a contingent liability of Johnston immediately before the combination. Therefore
Johnston cannot recognise a liability for Tiltman’s restructuring plans as part of allocating the cost of the combination
(IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’).
Tiltman’s auditor’s report
The following adjustments are required to the financial statements:
■ restructuring provision, $2·3m, eliminated;
■ adequate disclosure of relocation as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event;
■ current period inventory written down by $0·9m;
■ prior period inventory (and reserves) written down by $1·8m.
Profit for the year to 31 March 2006 should be $3·9m ($0·7 + $0·9 + $2·3).
If all these adjustments are made the auditor’s report should be unmodified. Otherwise, the auditor’s report should be
qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of disagreement. If none of the adjustments are made, the qualification should still be
‘except for’ as the matters are not pervasive.
Johnston’s auditor’s report
If Tiltman’s auditor’s report is unmodified (because the required adjustments are made) the auditor’s report of Johnston
should be similarly unmodified. As Tiltman is wholly-owned by Johnston there should be no problem getting the
adjustments made.
If no adjustments were made in Tiltman’s financial statements, adjustments could be made on consolidation, if
necessary, to avoid modification of the auditor’s report on Johnston’s financial statements.
The effect of these adjustments on Tiltman’s net assets is an increase of $1·4m. Goodwill arising on consolidation (if
any) would be reduced by $1·4m. The reduction in consolidated total assets required ($0·9m + $1·4m) is therefore
the same as the reduction in consolidated total liabilities (i.e. $2·3m). $2·3m is material (4·2% consolidated total
assets). If Tiltman’s financial statements are not adjusted and no adjustments are made on consolidation, the
consolidated financial position (balance sheet) should be qualified ‘except for’. The results of operations (i.e. profit for
the period) should be unqualified (if permitted in the jurisdiction in which Johnston reports).
Adjustment in respect of the inventory valuation may not be required as Johnston should have consolidated inventory
at fair value on acquisition. In this case, consolidated total liabilities should be reduced by $2·3m and goodwill arising
on consolidation (if any) reduced by $2·3m.
Tutorial note: The effect of any possible goodwill impairment has been ignored as the subsidiary has only just been
acquired and the balance sheet date is very close to the date of acquisition.

正确答案：
(b) Management judgement may have a greater impact under IFRS than generally was the case under national GAAP. IFRS
utilises fair values extensively. Management have to use their judgement in selecting valuation methods and formulating
assumptions when dealing with such areas as onerous contracts, share-based payments, pensions, intangible assets acquired
in business combinations and impairment of assets. Differences in methods or assumptions can have a major impact on
amounts recognised in financial statements. IAS1 expects companies to disclose the sensitivity of carrying amounts to the
methods, assumptions and estimates underpinning their calculation where there is a significant risk of material adjustment
to their carrying amounts within the next financial year. Often management’s judgement is that there is no ‘significant risk’
and they often fail to disclose the degree of estimation or uncertainty and thus comparability is affected.
In addition to the IFRSs themselves, a sound financial reporting infrastructure is required. This implies effective corporate
governance practices, high quality auditing standards and practices, and an effective enforcement or oversight mechanism.
Therefore, consistency and comparability of IFRS financial statements will also depend on the robust nature of the other
elements of the financial reporting infrastructure.
Many preparers of financial statements will have been trained in national GAAP and may not have been trained in the
principles underlying IFRS and this can lead to unintended inconsistencies when implementing IFRS especially where the
accounting profession does not have a CPD requirement. Additionally where the regulatory system of a country is not well
developed, there may not be sufficient market information to utilise fair value measurements and thus this could lead to
hypothetical markets being created or the use of mathematical modelling which again can lead to inconsistencies because of
lack of experience in those countries of utilising these techniques. This problem applies to other assessments or estimates
relating to such things as actuarial valuations, investment property valuations, impairment testing, etc.
The transition to IFRS can bring significant improvement to the quality of financial performance and improve comparability
worldwide. However, there are issues still remaining which can lead to inconsistency and lack of comparability with those
financial statements.

正确答案：
6 DEVELOPMENTS
General comments
Tutorial note: The following comments, that could be made in respect of any of the three areas of development, will be given
credit only once.
■ Audit scope – the scope of a statutory audit should be as necessary to form. an audit opinion (i.e. unlimited).
■ Audit work undertaken – the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures should be as necessary to implement the overall
audit plan.
(a) Fair value accounting
■ Different definitions of fair value exist (among financial reporting frameworks or for different assets and liabilities within
a particular framework). For example, under IFRS it is ‘the amount for which an asset could be exchanged (or a liability
settled) between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’.
■ The term ‘fair value accounting’ is used to describe the measurement and disclosure of assets and/or liabilities at fair
value and the charging to profit and loss (or directly to equity) of any changes in fair value measurements.
■ Fair value accounting concerns measurements and disclosures but not initial recognition of assets and liabilities in
financial statements. It does not then, for example, affect the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures to confirm
the existence and completeness of rights and obligations.
■ Fair value may be determined with varying degrees of subjectivity. For example, there will be little (if any) subjectivity
for assets bought and sold in active and open markets that readily provide reliable information on the prices at which
exchange transactions occur. However, the valuation of assets with unique characteristics (or entity-specific assets) often
requires the projection and discounting of future cash flows.
■ The audit of estimates of fair values based on valuation models/techniques can be approached like other accounting
estimates (in accordance with ISA 540 ‘Audit of Accounting Estimates’). However, although the auditor should be able
to review and test the process used by management to develop the estimate, there may be:
? a much greater need for an independent estimate (and hence greater reliance on the work of experts in accordance
with ISA 620);
? no suitable subsequent events to confirm the estimate made (e.g. for assets that are held for use and not for
trading).
Tutorial note: Consider, for example, how the audit of ‘in-process research and development’ might compare with that
for an allowance for slow-moving inventory.
■ Different financial reporting frameworks require or permit a variety of fair value measures and disclosures in financial
statements. They also vary in the level of guidance provided (to preparers of the financial statements – and hence their
auditors). Under IFRS, certain fair values are based on management intent and ‘reasonable supportable assumptions’.
■ The audit of management intent potentially increases the auditor’s reliance on management representations. The auditor
must obtain such representations from the highest level of management and exercise an appropriate degree of
professional scepticism, being particularly alert to the implications of any conflicting evidence.
■ A significant development in international financial reporting is that it is no longer sufficient to report transactions and
past and future events that may only be possible. IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’ (Revised) requires that
key assumptions (and other key sources of estimation uncertainty) be disclosed. This requirement gives rise to yet
another area on which auditors may qualify their audit opinion, on grounds of disagreement, where such disclosure is
incorrect or inadequate.
■ Perhaps one of the most significant impacts of fair value accounting on audit work is that it necessarily increases it.
Consider for example, that even where the fair value of an asset is as easily vouched as original cost, fair value is
determined at least annually whereas historic cost is unchanged (and not re-vouched to original purchase
documentation).

正确答案：
(c) Non-executive directors
Roles of NEDs
Non-executive directors have four principal roles.
The strategy role recognises that NEDs are full members of the board and thus have the right and responsibility to contribute
to the strategic success of the organisation for the benefit of shareholders. The enterprise must have a clear strategic direction
and NEDs should be able to bring considerable experience from their lives and business experience to bear on ensuring that
chosen strategies are sound. In this role they may challenge any aspect of strategy they see fit and offer advice or input to
help to develop successful strategy.
In the scrutinising or performance role, NEDs are required to hold executive colleagues to account for decisions taken and
company performance. In this respect they are required to represent the shareholders’ interests against the possibility that
agency issues arise to reduce shareholder value.
The risk role involves NEDs ensuring the company has an adequate system of internal controls and systems of risk
management in place. This is often informed by prescribed codes (such as Turnbull in the UK) but some industries, such as
chemicals, have other systems in place, some of which fall under ISO standards. In this role, NEDs should satisfy themselves
on the integrity of financial information and that financial controls and systems of risk management are robust and defensible.
Finally, the ‘people’ role involves NEDs overseeing a range of responsibilities with regard to the management of the executive
members of the board. This typically involves issues on appointments and remuneration, but might also involve contractual
or disciplinary issues and succession planning.
Tutorial note: these four roles are as described in the UK Higgs Report and are also contained in the Combined Code 2003.
Tensions in NED roles in the case
This refers to a potential tension in the loyalties of the NEDs. Although the NED is accountable, through the chairman to the
shareholders and thus must always act in the economic best interests of the shareholders, he or she is also a part of the board
of the company and they may, in some situations, advise discretion. Withholding information might be judged correct because
of strategic considerations or longer-term shareholder interests. In most situations, NEDs will argue for greater transparency,
less concealment and more clarity of how and why a given action will be in the interests of shareholders.
The case of mallerite overestimation places the WM NEDs in a position of some tension. Any instinct to conceal the full extent
of the overestimate of the reserve for the possible protection of the company’s short-term value must be balanced against the
duty to serve longer-term strategic interests and the public interest. Whilst concealment would protect the company’s
reputation and share price in the short term, it would be a duty of the NEDs to point out that WM should observe transparency
as far as possible in its dealing with the shareholders and other capital market participants.