新疆考生想知道ACCA的科目F3怎么备考？

正确答案：
(b) (i) Materiality
The net book value of capitalised development costs represent 7% of total assets in 2007 (2006 – 7·7%), and is
therefore material. The net book value has increased by 13%, a significant trend.
The costs capitalised during the year amount to $750,000. If it was found that the development cost had been
inappropriately capitalised, the cost should instead have been expensed. This would reduce profit before tax by
$750,000, representing 42% of the year’s profit. This is highly material. It is therefore essential to gather sufficient
evidence to support the assertion that development costs should be recognised as an asset.
In 2007, $750,000 capitalised development costs have been incurred, when added to $160,000 research costs
expensed, total research and development costs are $910,000 which represents 20·2% of total revenue, again
indicating a high level of materiality for this class of transaction.
Relevant accounting standard
Development costs should only be capitalised as an intangible asset if the recognition criteria of IAS 38 Intangible Assets
have been demonstrated in full:
– Intention to complete the intangible asset and use or sell it
– Technical feasibility and ability to use or sell
– Ability to generate future economic benefit
– Availability of technical, financial and other resources to complete
– Ability to measure the expenditure attributable to the intangible asset.
Research costs must be expensed, as should development costs which do not comply with the above criteria. The
auditors must consider how Sci-Tech Co differentiates between research and development costs.
There is risk that not all of the criteria have been demonstrated, especially due to the subjective nature of the
development itself:
– Pharmaceutical development is highly regulated. If the government does not license the product then the product
cannot be sold, and economic benefits will therefore not be received.
– Market research should justify the commercial viability of the product. The launch of a rival product to Flortex
means that market share is likely to be much lower than anticipated, and the ability to sell Flortex is reduced. This
could mean that Flortex will not generate an overall economic benefit if future sales will not recover the research
and development costs already suffered, and yet to be suffered, prior to launch. The existence of the rival product
could indicate that Flortex is no longer commercially viable, in which case the capitalised development costs
relating to Flortex should be immediately expensed.
– The funding on which development is dependent may be withdrawn, indicating that there are not adequate
resources to complete the development of the products. Sci-Tech has failed to meet one of its required key
performance indicators (KPI) in the year ended 30 November 2007, as products valued at 0·8% revenue have
been donated to charity, whereas the required KPI is 1% revenue.
Given that there is currently a breach of the target KPIs, this is likely to result in funding equivalent to 25% of
research and development expenditure being withdrawn. If Sci-Tech Co is unable to source alternative means of
finance, then it would seem that adequate resources may not be available to complete the development of new
products.

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
(b) FAQs
(i) Information Technology (IT) services
The greatest threats to independence arise from the provision of any service which involves auditors in:
■ auditing their own work;
■ the decision-making process;
■ undertaking management functions of the client.
IT services potentially pose all these threats:
■ self-interest threat – on-going services that provide a large proportion of Boleyn’s annual fees will contribute to a
threat to objectivity;
■ self-review threat – e.g. when IT services provided involve (i) the supervision of the audit client’s employees in the
performance of their normal duties; or (ii) the origination of electronic data evidencing the occurrence of
transactions;
■ management threat – e.g. when the IT services involve making judgments and taking decisions that are properly
the responsibility of management.
Thus, services that involve the design and implementation of financial IT systems that are used to generate information
forming a significant part of a client’s accounting system or financial statements is likely to create significant ethical
threats.
Possible safeguards include:
■ disclosing and discussing fees with the client’s audit committees (or others charged with corporate governance);
■ the audit client providing a written acknowledgment (e.g. in an engagement letter) of its responsibility for:
– establishing and monitoring a system of internal controls;
– the operation of the system (hardware or software); and
– the data used or generated by the system;
■ the designation by the audit client of a competent employee (preferably within senior management) with
responsibility to make all management decisions regarding the design and implementation of the hardware or
software system;
■ evaluation of the adequacy and results of the design and implementation of the system by the audit client;
■ suitable allocation of work within the firm (i.e. staff providing the IT services not being involved in the audit
engagement and having different reporting lines); and
■ review of the audit opinion by an audit partner who is not involved in the audit engagement.
Services in connection with the assessment, design and implementation of internal accounting controls and risk
management controls are not considered to create a threat to independence provided that the firm’s personnel do not
perform. management functions.
It would be acceptable to provide IT services to an audit client where the systems are not important to any significant
part of the accounting system or the production of financial statements and do not have significant reliance placed on
them by the auditors, provided that:
■ a member of the client’s management has been designated to receive and take responsibility for the results of the
IT work undertaken; and
■ appropriate safeguards are put in place (e.g. using separate partners and staff for each role and review by a partner
not involved in the audit engagement).
It would also generally be acceptable to provide and install off-the-shelf accounting packages to an audit client.