有关九大行业中ACCA会员薪资待遇的解读，赶紧来查阅！

正确答案：
(a) (i) The transfer price of ￡750 proposed by the IT division is based on cost plus 150% from which it can be deduced that
the total cost of a consulting day is (100/250) x ￡750 = ￡300. This comprises ￡240 (80%) variable cost and ￡60
(20%) fixed cost. In this instance the transfer price should be set at marginal costs plus opportunity cost. It is assumed
in this situation that transferring internally would result in the IT division having a lost contribution of ￡750 – ￡240 =
￡510 per consulting day. The marginal cost of the transfer of services to the HR division is ￡190 (￡240 external variable
costs less ￡50 saving due to use of internal video-conferencing equipment). Adding the opportunity cost of ￡510 gives
a transfer price of ￡700 per consulting day. This is equivalent to using market price as a basis for transfer pricing where
the transfer price is set at the external market price (￡750) less any costs avoided (￡50) by transferring internally.
(ii) There is in effect no external market available for one of the required pairs of consultants within the IT division and
therefore opportunity cost will not apply and transfers should be made at the variable cost per consulting day of ￡190.
The other pair of consultants, who would otherwise be 100% utilised in providing consulting services to external clients,
should be charged at a rate of ￡700 per day which represents marginal cost plus opportunity cost.
(iii) The lost contribution from the major client amounts to ￡264,000/(2 x 240) = ￡550 less variable costs of ￡240 =
￡310 per consulting day. Thus, in this instance the transfer price should be the contribution foregone of ￡310 plus
internal variable costs of ￡190 making a total of ￡500 per consulting day.

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：
(ii) The statement of product profitability shows that CTC is forecast to achieve a profit of $2·185 million in 2008 giving a
profit:sales ratio of 11·9%. However, the forecast profit in 2009 is only $22,000 which would give a profit:sales ratio
of just 0·19%! Total sales volume in 2008 is 390,000 units which represent 97·5% utilisation of total annual capacity.
In stark contrast, the total sales volume in 2009 is forecast to be 240,000 units which represents 60% utilisation of
total annual capacity and shows the expected rapid decline in sales volumes of Bruno and Kong products. The rapid
decline in the sales of these two products is only offset to a relatively small extent by increased sales volume from the
Leo product. It is vital that a new product or products with healthy contribution to sales ratios are introduced.
Management should also undertake cost/benefit analyses in order to assess the potential of extending the life of Bruno
and Kong products.