山东省考生想知道ACCA的科目F3怎么备考？

正确答案：
(iii) The treatment of items not dealt with by an IFRS for SMEs
IFRSs for SMEs would not necessarily deal with all the recognition and measurement issues facing an entity but the key
issues should revolve around the nature of the recognition, measurement and disclosure of the transactions of SMEs. In
the case where the item is not dealt with by the standards there are three alternatives:
(a) the entity can look to the full IFRS to resolve the issue
(b) management’s judgement can be used with reference to the Framework and consistency with other IFRSs for SMEs
(c) existing practice could be used.
The first approach is more likely to result in greater consistency and comparability. However, this approach may also
increase the burden on SMEs as it can be argued that they are subject to two sets of standards.
An SME may wish to make a disclosure required by a full IFRS which is not required by the SME standard, or a
measurement principle is simplified or exempted in the SME standard, or the IFRS may give a choice between two
measurement options and the SME standard does not allow choice. Thus the issue arises as to whether SMEs should
be able to choose to comply with a full IFRS for some items and SME standards for other items, allowing an SME to
revert to IFRS on a principle by principle basis. The problem which will arise will be a lack of consistency and
comparability of SME financial statements.

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(b) Financial statement risks
Tutorial note: Note the timeframe. Financial statements for the year to 30 June 2006 are draft. Certain misstatements
may therefore exist due to year-end procedures not yet having taken place.
Revenue/(Receivables)
■ Revenue has increased by 11·8% ((161·5 – 144·4)/144·4 × 100). Overstatement could arise if rebates due to customers
have not yet been accounted for in full (as they are calculated in arrears). If rebates have still to be accounted for trade
receivables will be similarly overstated.
Materials expense
■ Materials expense has increased by 17·8% ((88.0 – 74·7)/74·7 × 100). This is more than the increase in revenue. This
could be legitimate (e.g. if fuel costs have increased significantly). However, the increase could indicate misclassification
of:
– revenue expenditure (see fall in other expenses below);
– capital expenditure (e.g. on overhauls or major refurbishment) as revenue;
– finance lease payments as operating lease.
Depreciation/amortisation
■ This has fallen by 10·5% ((8·5 – 9·5)/9·5 × 100). This could be valid (e.g. if Yates has significant assets already fully
depreciated or the asset base is lower since last year’s restructuring). However, there is a risk of understatement if, for
example:
– not all assets have been depreciated (or depreciated at the wrong rates, or only for 11 months of the year);
– cost of non-current assets is understated (e.g. due to failure to recognise capital expenditure)1;
– impairment losses have not been recognised (as compared with the prior year).
Tutorial note: Depreciation on vehicles and transport equipment represents only 7% of cost. If all items were being
depreciated on a straight-line basis over eight years this should be 12·5%. The depreciation on other equipment looks more
reasonable as it amounts to 14% which would be consistent with an average age of vehicles of seven years (i.e. in the middle
of the range 3 – 13 years).
Other expenses
■ These have fallen by 15·5% ((19·6 – 23·2)/23·2 × 100). They may have fallen (e.g. following the restructuring) or may be
understated due to:
– expenses being misclassified as materials expense;
– underestimation of accrued expenses (especially as the financial reporting period has not yet expired).
Intangibles
■ Intangible assets have increased by $1m (16% on the prior year). Although this may only just be material to the
financial statements as a whole (see (a)) this is the net movement, therefore additions could be material.
■ Internally-generated intangibles will be overstated if:
– any of the IAS 38 recognition criteria cannot be demonstrated;
– any impairment in the year has not yet been written off in accordance with IAS 36 ‘Impairment of Assets’.
Tangible assets
■ The net book value of property (at cost) has fallen by 5%, vehicles are virtually unchanged (increased by just 2·5%)
and other equipment (though the least material category) has fallen by 20·4%.
■ Vehicles and equipment may be overstated if:
– disposals have not been recorded;
– depreciation has been undercharged (e.g. not for a whole year);
– impairments have not yet been accounted for.
■ Understatement will arise if finance leases are treated as operating leases.
Receivables
■ Trade receivables have increased by just 2·2% (although sales increased by 11·8%) and may be understated due to a
cutoff error resulting in overstatement of cash receipts.
■ There is a risk of overstatement if sufficient allowances have not been made for the impairment of individually significant
balances and for the remainder assessed on a portfolio or group basis.
Restructuring provision
■ The restructuring provision that was made last year has fallen/been utilised by 10·2%. There is a risk of overstatement
if the provision is underutilised/not needed for the purpose for which it was established.
Finance lease liabilities
■ Although finance lease liabilities have increased (by $1m) there is a greater risk of understatement than overstatement
if leased assets are not recognised on the balance sheet (i.e. capitalised).
■ Disclosure risk arises if the requirements of IAS 17 ‘Leases’ (e.g. in respect of minimum lease payments) are not met.
Trade payables
■ These have increased by only 5·3% compared with the 17·8% increase in materials expense. There is a risk of
understatement as notifications (e.g. suppliers’ invoices) of liabilities outstanding at 30 June 2006 may have still to be
received (the month of June being an unexpired period).
Other (employee) liabilities
■ These may be understated as they have increased by only 7·5% although staff costs have increased by 14%. For
example, balances owing in respect of outstanding holiday entitlements at the year end may not yet be accurately
estimated.
Tutorial note: Credit will be given to other financial statements risks specific to the scenario. For example, ‘time-sensitive
delivery schedules’ might give rise to penalties or claims, that could result in understated provisions or undisclosed
contingent liabilities. Also, given that this is a new audit and the result has changed significantly (from loss to profit) might
suggest a risk of misstatement in the opening balances (and hence comparative information).
1 Tutorial note: This may be unlikely as other expenses have fallen also.

正确答案：
(ii) Corporate hospitality
A partner in an audit firm is obviously in a position to influence the conduct and outcome of an audit. Therefore a
partner being on ‘too friendly’ terms with an audit client creates a familiarity threat. Other members of the audit team
may not exert as much influence on the audit.
A self-interest threat may also be perceived (e.g. if corporate hospitality is provided to keep a prestigious client).
There is no absolute prohibition against corporate hospitality provided:
■ the value attached to such hospitality is ‘insignificant’; and
■ the ‘frequency, nature and cost’ of the hospitality is reasonable.
Thus, flying the directors of an audit client for weekends away could be seen as significant. Similarly, entertaining an
audit client on a regular basis could be seen as unacceptable.
Partners and staff of Boleyn will need to be objective in their assessments of the significance or reasonableness of the
hospitality offered. (Would ‘a reasonable and informed third party’ conclude that the hospitality will or is likely to be
seen to impair your objectivity?)
If they have any doubts they should discuss the matter in the first instance with the audit engagement partner, who
should refer the matter to the ethics partner if in doubt.