湖北省考生：ACCA证书是什么样的证书？ACCA证书在国内受到认可吗？

正确答案：
(c) Tax implications of there being a loan from Flores Ltd to Banda
Flores Ltd should have paid tax to HMRC equal to 25% of the loan, i.e. ￡5,250. The tax should have been paid on the
company’s normal due date for corporation tax in respect of the accounting period in which the loan was made, i.e. 1 April
following the end of the accounting period.
The tax is due because Flores Ltd is a close company that has made a loan to a participator and that loan is not in the ordinary
course of the company’s business.
HMRC will repay the tax when the loan is either repaid or written off.
Flores Ltd should have included the loan on Banda’s Form. P11D in order to report it to HMRC.
Banda should have paid income tax on an annual benefit equal to 5% of the amount of loan outstanding during each tax
year. Accordingly, for each full year for which the loan was outstanding, Banda should have paid income tax of ￡231
(￡21,000 x 5% x 22%).
Interest and penalties may be charged in respect of the tax underpaid by both Flores Ltd and Banda and in respect of the
incorrect returns made to HMRC
Willingness to act for Banda
We would not wish to be associated with a client who has engaged in deliberate tax evasion as this poses a threat to the
fundamental principles of integrity and professional behaviour. Accordingly, we should refuse to act for Banda unless she is
willing to disclose the details regarding the loan to HMRC and pay the ensuing tax liabilities. Even if full disclosure is made,
we should consider whether the loan was deliberately hidden from HMRC or Banda’s previous tax adviser.
In addition, companies are prohibited from making loans to directors under the Companies Act. We should advise Banda to
seek legal advice on her own position and that of Flores Ltd.

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：
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：
(a) The transition to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) involves major change for companies as IFRS introduces
significant changes in accounting practices that often were not required by national GAAPs. For example financial instruments
and share-based payment plans in many instances have appeared on the statements of financial position of companies for
the first time. As a result IFRS financial statements are often significantly more complex than financial statements based on
national GAAP. This complexity is caused by the more extensive recognition and measurement rules in IFRS and a greater
number of disclosure requirements. Because of this complexity, it can be difficult for users of financial statements which have
been produced using IFRS to understand and interpret them, and thus can lead to inconsistency of interpretation of those
financial statements.
The form. and presentation of financial statements is dealt with by IAS1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’. This standard
sets out alternative forms or presentations of financial statements. Additionally local legislation often requires supplementary
information to be disclosed in financial statements, and best practice as to the form. or presentation of financial statements
has yet to emerge internationally. As a result companies moving to IFRS have tended to adopt IFRS in a way which minimises
the change in the form. of financial reporting that was applied under national GAAP. For example UK companies have tended
to present a statement of recognised income and expense, and a separate statement of changes in equity whilst French
companies tend to present a single statement of changes in equity.
It is possible to interpret standards in different ways and in some standards there is insufficient guidance. For example there
are different acceptable methods of classifying financial assets under IAS39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement’ in the statement of financial position as at fair value through profit or loss (subject to certain conditions) or
available for sale.
IFRSs are not based on a consistent set of principles, and there are conceptual inconsistencies within and between standards.
Certain standards allow alternative accounting treatments, and this is a further source of inconsistency amongst financial
statements. IAS31 ‘Interests in Joint Ventures’ allows interests in jointly controlled entities to be accounted for using the equity
method or proportionate consolidation. Companies may tend to use the method which was used under national GAAP.
Another example of choice in accounting methods under IFRS is IAS16 ‘Property, Plant and equipment’ where the cost or
revaluation model can be used for a class of property, plant and equipment. Also there is very little industry related accounting
guidance in IFRS. As a result judgement plays an important role in the selection of accounting policies. In certain specific
areas this can lead to a degree of inconsistency and lack of comparability.
IFRS1, ‘First time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards’, allows companies to use a number of exemptions
from the requirements of IFRS. These exemptions can affect financial statements for several years. For example, companies
can elect to recognise all cumulative actuarial gains and losses relating to post-employment benefits at the date of transition
to IFRS but use the ‘corridor’ approach thereafter. Thus the effect of being able to use a ‘one off write off’ of any actuarial
losses could benefit future financial statements significantly, and affect comparability. Additionally after utilising the above
exemption, companies can elect to recognise subsequent gains and losses outside profit or loss in ‘other comprehensive
income’ in the period in which they occur and not use the ‘corridor’ approach thus affecting comparability further.
Additionally IAS18 ‘Revenue’ allows variations in the way revenue is recognised. There is no specific guidance in IFRS on
revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. Transactions have to be analysed in accordance with their economic
substance but there is often no more guidance than this in IFRS. The identification of the functional currency under IAS21,
‘The effects of changes in foreign exchange rates’, can be subjective. For example the functional currency can be determined
by the currency in which the commodities that a company produces are commonly traded, or the currency which influences
its operating costs, and both can be different.
Another source of inconsistency is the adoption of new standards and interpretations earlier than the due date of application
of the standard. With the IASB currently preparing to issue standards with an adoption date of 1 January 2009, early adoption
or lack of it could affect comparability although IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’
requires a company to disclose the possible impact of a new standard on its initial application. Many companies make very
little reference to the future impact of new standards.