速看，你知道acca和cpa哪个更难吗？

发布时间：2020-02-02

最近好多小伙伴都来问51题库考试学习网acca难还是cpa难？其实这个问题的背后实际是在考虑在国内考哪个更值，或者认可度更大。今天51题库考试学习网就给大家解读一下。

ACCA和CPA同为注册会计师，不过不同的是，一个是国内唯一的注册会计师资格，一个是英国的注册会计师，在我国又被叫做国际注册会计师。两者都是国内比较流行的会计资格，认可度和含金量差异并不算大，但在考试通过率方面，两者的区别较为明显。

ACCA和CPA考试通过率哪个更高呢？

ACCA，首先作为一个西方的资格考试，它绝不是一个简单的考试，如果简单也就没什么含金量了。那它的难度究竟如何呢?ACCA的课程是使学员由浅入深地全面掌握财务、财务管理、审计、税收及经营战略等方面的专业知识，提升财务英语水平、分析能力并拓宽战略思维。

全球通过率单科基本维持在40-60%左右，低级别科目通过率甚至更高，这是因为ACCA不去刻意控制通过率，当学员的真实水平达到及格标准的时候，往往都会通过考试。

ACCA注重的是实际能力的应用和思维的开发，所以ACCA的考题与实际应用联系的非常紧密，完全没有刁钻的感觉。在专业财务知识部分，ACCA的难度甚至要低于会计中级职称考试。总体来说，只要你有一定的思考能力，并且能够坚持刻苦学习，就一定会通过考试。

而CPA的难是公认的，虽然在中国每年都有十万人参加注册会计师考试，但它的平均通过仅有9-10%左右。这个结果除了学习时间和精力的局限之外，更多是因为为了控制通过率，考官们往往会呈现一些偏题和怪题，所以非常努力却没有通过考试的人大有人在。

从通过率上来看，ACCA要远高于CPA，这就是为什么越来越多的在职人士和大学生都喜欢报考ACCA，来提高自己的竞争力了。不过，需要知道的是，ACCA虽然通过率较高，但是科目较多，费用相对也略高一点，所以一旦开始报考ACCA，就要坚持不懈地学习下去，切勿半途而废。

ACCA适用的是国际会计准则，在经济全球化加速发展的今天，很多在中国的外企和走出去的国企都需要ACCA持证人，会计师事务所在对美股等上市企业进行审计时，也需要熟悉国际会计准则的ACCA持证人。目前ACCA在中国已拥有超过2万多名会员和4万多名学员，尤其深受大学生考证一族的青睐。

因此51题库考试学习网认为如果想在外企工作的话，建议考ACCA吧。CPA在国内比ACCA多一个签字权，如果从事审计则可以考CPA，如果不是从事审计工作的话，用处不大。

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。

4 Ryder, a public limited company, is reviewing certain events which have occurred since its year end of 31 October

2005. The financial statements were authorised on 12 December 2005. The following events are relevant to the

financial statements for the year ended 31 October 2005:

(i) Ryder has a good record of ordinary dividend payments and has adopted a recent strategy of increasing its

dividend per share annually. For the last three years the dividend per share has increased by 5% per annum.

On 20 November 2005, the board of directors proposed a dividend of 10c per share for the year ended

31 October 2005. The shareholders are expected to approve it at a meeting on 10 January 2006, and a

dividend amount of $20 million will be paid on 20 February 2006 having been provided for in the financial

statements at 31 October 2005. The directors feel that a provision should be made because a ‘valid expectation’

has been created through the company’s dividend record. (3 marks)

(ii) Ryder disposed of a wholly owned subsidiary, Krup, a public limited company, on 10 December 2005 and made

a loss of $9 million on the transaction in the group financial statements. As at 31 October 2005, Ryder had no

intention of selling the subsidiary which was material to the group. The directors of Ryder have stated that there

were no significant events which have occurred since 31 October 2005 which could have resulted in a reduction

in the value of Krup. The carrying value of the net assets and purchased goodwill of Krup at 31 October 2005

were $20 million and $12 million respectively. Krup had made a loss of $2 million in the period 1 November

2005 to 10 December 2005. (5 marks)

(iii) Ryder acquired a wholly owned subsidiary, Metalic, a public limited company, on 21 January 2004. The

consideration payable in respect of the acquisition of Metalic was 2 million ordinary shares of $1 of Ryder plus

a further 300,000 ordinary shares if the profit of Metalic exceeded $6 million for the year ended 31 October

2005. The profit for the year of Metalic was $7 million and the ordinary shares were issued on 12 November

2005. The annual profits of Metalic had averaged $7 million over the last few years and, therefore, Ryder had

included an estimate of the contingent consideration in the cost of the acquisition at 21 January 2004. The fair

value used for the ordinary shares of Ryder at this date including the contingent consideration was $10 per share.

The fair value of the ordinary shares on 12 November 2005 was $11 per share. Ryder also made a one for four

bonus issue on 13 November 2005 which was applicable to the contingent shares issued. The directors are

unsure of the impact of the above on earnings per share and the accounting for the acquisition. (7 marks)

(iv) The company acquired a property on 1 November 2004 which it intended to sell. The property was obtained

as a result of a default on a loan agreement by a third party and was valued at $20 million on that date for

accounting purposes which exactly offset the defaulted loan. The property is in a state of disrepair and Ryder

intends to complete the repairs before it sells the property. The repairs were completed on 30 November 2005.

The property was sold after costs for $27 million on 9 December 2005. The property was classified as ‘held for

sale’ at the year end under IFRS5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’ but shown at

the net sale proceeds of $27 million. Property is depreciated at 5% per annum on the straight-line basis and no

depreciation has been charged in the year. (5 marks)

(v) The company granted share appreciation rights (SARs) to its employees on 1 November 2003 based on ten

million shares. The SARs provide employees at the date the rights are exercised with the right to receive cash

equal to the appreciation in the company’s share price since the grant date. The rights vested on 31 October

2005 and payment was made on schedule on 1 December 2005. The fair value of the SARs per share at

31 October 2004 was $6, at 31 October 2005 was $8 and at 1 December 2005 was $9. The company has

recognised a liability for the SARs as at 31 October 2004 based upon IFRS2 ‘Share-based Payment’ but the

liability was stated at the same amount at 31 October 2005. (5 marks)

Required:

Discuss the accounting treatment of the above events in the financial statements of the Ryder Group for the year

ended 31 October 2005, taking into account the implications of events occurring after the balance sheet date.

(The mark allocations are set out after each paragraph above.)

(25 marks)

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.

(c) In October 2004, Volcan commenced the development of a site in a valley of ‘outstanding natural beauty’ on

which to build a retail ‘megastore’ and warehouse in late 2005. Local government planning permission for the

development, which was received in April 2005, requires that three 100-year-old trees within the valley be

preserved and the surrounding valley be restored in 2006. Additions to property, plant and equipment during

the year include $4·4 million for the estimated cost of site restoration. This estimate includes a provision of

$0·4 million for the relocation of the 100-year-old trees.

In March 2005 the trees were chopped down to make way for a car park. A fine of $20,000 per tree was paid

to the local government in May 2005. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Volcan for the year ended

31 March 2005.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

正确答案：
(c) Site restoration
(i) Matters
■ The provision for site restoration represents nearly 2·5% of total assets and is therefore material if it is not
warranted.
■ The estimated cost of restoring the site is a cost directly attributable to the initial measurement of the tangible fixed
asset to the extent that it is recognised as a provision under IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’ (IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’).
■ A provision should not be recognised for site restoration unless it meets the definition of a liability, i.e:
– a present obligation;
– arising from past events;
– the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits.
■ The provision is overstated by nearly $0·34m since Volcan is not obliged to relocate the trees and de facto has
only an obligation of $60,000 as at 31 March 2005 (being the penalty for having felled them). When considered
in isolation, this overstatement is immaterial (representing only 0·2% of total assets and 3·6% of PBT).
■ It seems that even if there are local government regulations calling for site restoration there is no obligation unless
the penalties for non-compliance are prohibitive (unlike the fines for the trees).
■ It is unlikely that commencement of site development has given rise to a constructive obligation, since past actions
(disregarding the preservation of the trees) must dispel any expectation that Volcan will honour any pledge to
restore the valley.
■ Whether commencing development of the site, and destroying the trees, conflicts with any statement of socioenvironmental
responsibility in the annual report.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A copy of the planning application and permission granted setting out the penalties for non-compliance.
■ Payment of $60,000 to local government in May 2005 agreed to the bank statement.
■ The present value calculation of the future cash expenditure making up the $4·0m provision.
Tutorial note: Evidence supporting the calculation of $0·4m is irrelevant as there is no liability to be provided for.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (as
for (a)).
■ Asset inspection at the site as at 31 March 2005.
■ Any contracts entered into which might confirm or dispute management’s intentions to restore the site. For
example, whether plant hire (bulldozers, etc) covers only the period over which the warehouse will be constructed
– or whether it extends to the period in which the valley would be ‘made good’.

1 Geno Vesa Farm (GVF), a limited liability company, is a cheese manufacturer. Its principal activity is the production

of a traditional ‘Farmhouse’ cheese that is retailed around the world to exclusive shops, through mail order and web

sales. Other activities include the sale of locally produced foods through a farm shop and cheese-making

demonstrations and tours.

The farm’s herd of 700 goats is used primarily for the production of milk. Kids (i.e. goat offspring), which are a

secondary product, are selected for herd replacement or otherwise sold. Animals held for sale are not usually retained

beyond the time they reach optimal size or weight because their value usually does not increase thereafter.

There are two main variations of the traditional farmhouse cheese; ‘Rabida Red’ and ‘Bachas Blue’. The red cheese

is coloured using Innittu, which is extracted from berries found only in South American rain forests. The cost of Innittu

has risen sharply over the last year as the collection of berries by local village workers has come under the scrutiny

of an international action group. The group is lobbying the South American government to ban the export of Innittu,

claiming that the workers are being exploited and that sustaining the forest is seriously under threat.

Demand for Bachas Blue, which is made from unpasteurised milk, fell considerably in 2003 following the publication

of a research report that suggested a link between unpasteurised milk products and a skin disorder. The financial

statements for the year ended 30 September 2004 recognised a material impairment loss attributable to the

equipment used exclusively for the manufacture of Bachas Blue. However, as the adverse publicity is gradually being

forgotten, sales of Bachas Blue are now showing a steady increase and are currently expected to return to their former

level by the end of September 2005.

Cheese is matured to three strengths – mild, medium and strong – depending on the period of time it is left to ripen,

which is six, 12 and 18 months respectively. When produced, the cheese is sold to a financial institution, Abingdon

Bank, at cost. Under the terms of sale, GVF has the option to buy the cheese on its maturity at cost plus 7% for

every six months which has elapsed.

All cheese is stored to maturity on wooden boards in GVF’s cool and airy sheds. However, recently enacted health

and safety legislation requires that the wooden boards be replaced with stainless steel shelves with effect from 1 July

2005. The management of GVF has petitioned the government health department that to comply with the legislation

would interfere with the maturing process and the production of medium and strong cheeses would have to cease.

In 2003, GVF applied for and received a substantial regional development grant for the promotion of tourism in the

area. GVF’s management has deferred its plan to convert a disused barn into holiday accommodation from 2004

until at least 2006.

Required:

(a) Identify and explain the principal audit risks to be considered when planning the final audit of GVF for the

year ending 30 September 2005. (14 marks)

正确答案：
(a) Principal audit risks
Industry
‘Farming’ is an inherently risky business activity – being subject to conditions (e.g. disease, weather) outside management’s
control. In some jurisdictions, where the industry is highly regulated, compliance risk may be high.
The risks of mail order retailing ‘exclusive’ products are higher (than for ‘essential’ products, say) as demand fluctuations are
more dramatic (e.g. in times of recession). However, the Internet has provided GVF with a global customer base.
The planned audit approach should be risk-based combined with a systems approach to (say) controls in the revenue cycle.
Goat herd
The goat herd will consist of:
■ mature goats held for use in the production of milk and kids which are held for replacement purposes (i.e. of the nature
of non-current tangible assets); and
■ kids which are to be sold (i.e. of the nature of inventory).
Tutorial note: IAS 41 is not an examinable document at 2.5 and candidates are not expected to be familiar with its
requirements. However, those candidates showing an awareness that biological assets are excluded from the scope of
IAS 16 because they are covered by IAS 41 and answered accordingly were not penalised but awarded equivalent marks.
Therefore, the number of animals in each category must be accurately ascertained to determine:
■ the balance sheet carrying amounts analysed between current and non-current assets; and
■ the charge to the income statement (e.g. for depreciation (IAS 16) and fair value adjustments (IAS 41)).
There is a risk that the carrying amount of the production animals will be misstated if, for example:
■ useful lives/depreciation rates are unreasonable;
■ estimates of residual values are not kept under review;
■ they are impaired.
Tutorial note: Under IAS 41 animals raised during the year should be recognised initially and at each balance sheet date
at fair value less estimated point-of-sale costs. There is therefore a risk of misstatement if fair value cannot be measured
reliabiy (e.g. if market-determined prices are not available). However, this seems unlikely.
Kids will be understated in the balance sheet if they are not recorded on birth (i.e. their existence needs to be recorded in
order that a value be assigned to them).
The net realisable value of animals held for sale may fall below cost if they are not sold soon after reaching optimal size and
weight.
The cost of goats is likely to be subjective. For example, the cost of producing a mature goat from a kid might include direct
costs (e.g. vetinary bills and cost of feed) and attributable overheads (e.g. sheltering). Care must be taken not to carry the
goat herd at more than the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell (IAS 36 Revised).
Unrecorded revenue
Raised (bred) animals are not purchased and, in the absence of documentation supporting their origination, could be sold for
cash (and the revenue unrecorded).
Although the controls over retailing around the world are likely to be strong, there are other sources of income – the shop and
other activities at the farm. Although revenue from these sundry sources may not be material, there is a risk that it could go
unrecorded due to lack of effective controls.
‘Rabida Red’
The cost of an ingredient which is essential to the manufacturing process has increased significantly. If the cost is passed on
to the customers, demand may fall (increasing going concern risk).
Supplies of the ingredient, Innittu, may be restricted – further increasing going concern risk.
Any disclosure of GVF’s socio-environmental policies (e.g. in other information presented with the audited financial
statements), if any, should be scrutinised to ensure that it does not mislead the reader and/or undermine the credibility of the
financial statements.
‘Bachas Blue’
If ‘Bachas Blue’ has been specifically cited as a cause of a skin disorder then GVF could face contingent liabilities for pending
litigation. However, it is more likely that the fall in demand has threatened GVF’s going concern. As the fall in demand has
not been permanent, this threat has been removed for the time being.
The impairment loss previously recognised in respect of the equipment used exclusively in the manufacture of Bachas Blue
should be reversed if there has been a change in the estimates used to determine their recoverable amount (IAS 36
‘Impairment of Assets’).
The recoverable amount would have been based on value in use (since net selling price would not have been applicable).
GVF’s management will have to provide evidence to support their best estimates of future cash flows for the recalculation of
value in use at 30 September 2005.
Maturing cheese
The substance of the sale and repurchase of cheese is that of a loan secured on the inventory. Therefore revenue should not
be recognised on ‘sale’ to Abingdon Bank. The principal terms of the secured borrowings should be disclosed, including the
carrying amount of the inventory to which it applies.
Borrowing costs should all be recognised as an expense in the period unless it is GVF’s policy to capitalise them (the allowed
alternative treatment under IAS 23 ‘Borrowing Costs’). Since the cost of inventories should include all costs incurred in
bringing them to their present location and condition (of maturity), the cost of maturing cheese should include interest at 7%
per six months (as clearly the borrowings are specific). There is a risk that, if the age of maturing cheeses is not accurately
determined, the cost of cheese will be misstated.
Health and safety legislation
At 30 September 2005 the legislation will have been in effect for three months. If GVF’s management has not replaced the
shelves, a provision should be made for the penalties/fines accruing from non-compliance.
If the legislation is complied with:
■ plant and equipment may be overstated e.g:
– if the replaced shelves are not written off;
– if the value of equipment, etc is impaired because the maturing cheese business is to be downsized;
■ inventory may be overstated (e.g. if insufficient allowance is made for the deterioration in maturing cheese resulting from
handling it to replace the shelves);
■ GVF may no longer be a going concern if it does not have the produce to sell to its exclusive customers.
Grant
There is a risk that the grant received has become repayable. For example, if the terms of the grant specified a timeframe. for
the development which is now to be exceeded. In this case the grant should be presented as a payable in the balance sheet.
If the reason for deferring the implementation is related to cash flow problems, this could have implications for the going
concern of GVF.

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