ACCA对自身职业发展有哪些帮助？了解一下？

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.

正确答案：
(ii) Exercising of share options
The share option is not part of an approved scheme, and will not therefore enjoy the benefits of such a scheme. There
are three events with tax consequences – grant, exercise and sale.
Grant. If shares or options over shares are sold or granted at less than market value, an income tax charge can arise on
the difference between the price paid and the market value. [Weight v Salmon]. In addition, if options can be exercised
more than 10 years after the date of the grant, an employment income charge can arise. This is based on the market
value at the date of grant less the grant and exercise priced.
In Henry’s case, the options were issued with an exercise price equal to the then market value, and cannot be exercised
more than 10 years from the grant. No income tax charge therefore arises on grant.
Exercise. On exercise, the individual pays the agreed amount in return for a number of shares in the company. The price
paid is compared with the open market value at that time, and if less, the difference is charged to income tax. National
insurance also applies, and the company has to pay Class 1 NIC. If the company and shareholder agree, the national
insurance can be passed onto the individual, and the liability becomes a deductible expense in calculating the income
tax charge.
In Henry’s case on exercise, the difference between market value (￡14) and the price paid (￡1) per share will be taxed
as income. Therefore, ￡130,000 (10,000 x (￡14 – ￡1)) will be taxed as income. In addition, national insurance will
be chargeable on the company at 12·8% (￡16,640) and on Henry at the rate of 1% (￡1,300).
Sale. The base cost of the shares is taken to be the market value at the time of exercise. On the sale of the shares, any
gain or loss arising falls under the capital gains tax rules, and CGT will be payable on any gain. Business asset taper
relief will be available as the company is an unquoted trading company, but the relief will only run from the time that
the share options are exercised – i.e. from the time when the shares were acquired.
In Henry’s case, the sale of the shares will immediately follow the exercise of the option (6 days later). The sale proceeds
and the market value at the time of exercise are likely to be similar; thus little to no gain is likely to arise.

正确答案：

(b) Effective project management could have improved the conduct of the website re-design project in the following ways:
Detailed planning
During the delivery of the project the lack of a formal detailed plan means that there is no baseline for review and control.
The absence of monitoring progress against that plan is also very evident. The meetings are events where, although progress
appears to have been made, it is unclear how much progress has been made towards the delivery of the final re-designed
website. Effective project management would have mandated the production of a detailed plan. There is no mention of a
project plan, a critical path analysis, a Gantt chart or supporting project management software.
Effective monitoring and control
The board were not kept up to date about progress and were only alerted to potential issue when the finance director became
concerned about spiralling costs. This is a failure of monitoring and control, aggravated by the fact that there is no project
plan to monitor against. Effective project management would have required formal progress to the sponsor (in this case the
board). Such monitoring should lead to project control, where suggested actions are considered and implemented to deal with
project slippage. The planning, monitoring and controlling aspects of project management are completely absent from the
scenario and so none of the usual project management monitoring and reporting structures were in place to alert the board.
Mandating of substitutes
Initial progress is hampered by the absence of key personnel at meetings 3 and 4 and the inappropriate sign-off by the RP
(already discussed above) of the technical design. The requirement for the TD to produce a technical report also slows
progress. These problems could have been addressed by ensuring that substitutes were available for these meetings who
understood their role and the scope of their authority. Effective project management would have ensured that progress would
not have been delayed by the absence of key personnel from the progress meetings.
Standards for cost-benefit analysis
The cost-benefit analysis provided by the MM is flawed in two ways. Firstly, the assumptions underpinning the benefits are
not explained. There is no supporting documentation and it appears, at face value, that year four and five benefits have been
greatly inflated to justify the project. Secondly, it would be usual to discount future costs and benefits using an agreed discount
rate. This has not been done, so the time value of money has not been taken into account. Effective project management
would have defined standards for the cost-benefit analysis based on accepted practice.
Estimating, risks and quality
The reaction of the board to the cost-benefit analysis also appears unrealistic. They appear to have suggested a budget and
a timescale which does not take into account the complexity of the remaining work or the resources available to undertake
it. The estimating part of the project management framework appears to be lacking. It is clear at the final meeting that the
website will not be ready for launch. However, the MM decides to take the risk and achieve the imposed deadline and take
a chance on the quality of the software. This decision is made against the advice of his TD and without any information about
the quality of the software. Effective project management would have mandated a framework for considering the balance
between risk and quality.

The MM does not inform. the board of the TD’s advice. The MM, like many project managers (because the MM now appears
to have adopted this role) finds it politically more acceptable to deliver a poor quality product on time than a better quality
product late. Unfortunately the product quality is so poor that the decision proves to be the wrong one and the removal of the
software (and the resignation of the MM) ends the project scenario.

正确答案：

(a) To: David Silvester
From:
Funding strategy for Gift Designs Ltd
Clearly, you have identified a real business opportunity and face both business and financial risks in turning the opportunity
into reality. One possible model you can use is that of the product life cycle which as a one-product firm is effectively the life
cycle for the company. Linking business risk to financial risk is important – in the early stages of the business the business
risk is high and the high death rate amongst new start-ups is well publicised and, consequently, there is a need to go for low
financial risk. Funding the business is essentially deciding the balance between debt and equity finance, and equity offers the
low risk that you should be looking for. As the firm grows and develops so the balance between debt and equity will change.
A new business venture like this could in Boston Box terms be seen as a problem child with a non-existent market share but
high growth potential. The business risks are very high and consequently the financial risks taken should be very low and
avoid taking on large amounts of debt with a commitment to service the debt.
You need to take advantage of investors who are willing to accept the risks associated with a business start-up – venture
capitalists and business angels accept the risks associated with putting equity capital in but may expect a significant share
in the ownership of the business. This they will seek to realise once the business is successfully established. As the business
moves into growth and then maturity so the business risks will reduce and access to debt finance becomes feasible and cost
effective. In maturity the business should be able to generate significant retained earnings to finance further development.

Dividend policy will also be affected by the stage in the life cycle that the business has reached.
Yours,