2019年ACCA考试《会计师与企业(基础阶段)》模拟试题(2019-03-21)
发布时间:2019-03-21
Question:Janet
works for a toy company called K Co. She telephones Mary at P Co on a daily
basis to order parts. Janet has no contact with customers but does deal with
complaint letters from D Group, an organisation against slave labour. D Group
believe that K Co use slave labour in the toy manufacturing factories.
Which
of the following are internal stakeholders of K Co?
A.
Janet only
B.
Janet and Mary at P Co
C.
Janet and D Group
D.
Janet, Mary and D Group
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。
1 Oliver Hoppe has been working at Hoopers and Henderson accountancy practice for eighteen months. He feels that
he fits in well, especially with his colleagues and has learnt a lot from them. However, he feels that the rules and
regulations governing everyday activities and time keeping are not clear.
Oliver does not get on well with his line manager, David Morgan. There appears to be a clash of personalities and
reluctance on David Morgan’s part to deal with the icy atmosphere between them after David was asked by one of
the accounting partners to give Oliver a job. For the past three months Oliver has gone to lunch with his fellow workers
and always returned to work with them or before them. In fact they all have returned to work about ten minutes late
on several previous occasions. After the third time, Oliver was called into David Morgan’s office and given an oral
warning about his time keeping.
Oliver was not permitted to argue his case and none of the other staff who returned late were disciplined in this way.
On the next occasion the group was late returning from lunch, David Morgan presented Oliver with a written warning
about his time keeping.
Yesterday, Oliver was five minutes late returning to work. His colleagues returned after him. David Morgan gave Oliver
notice and told him to work until the end of the week and then collect his salary, the necessary paperwork and to
leave the practice.
There is a partner responsible for human resources. Oliver has come to see the partner to discuss the grievance
procedures against David Morgan for his treatment and about what Oliver regards as unfair dismissal.
Required:
(a) Describe the six stages of a formal disciplinary procedure that an organisation such as Hoopers and
Henderson should have in place. (12 marks)
1 Overview
A grievance occurs when an individual thinks that he or she has been wrongly treated by colleagues or management, especially
in disciplinary matters. An unresolved feeling of grievance can often lead to further problems for the organisation. The purpose of
procedures is to resolve disciplinary and grievance issues to the satisfaction of all concerned and as early as possible.
If a grievance perceived by an employee is not resolved, then conflict and discontent can arise that will affect the work of the
individual and the organisation. Accountants as managers need to be aware of the need to resolve grievances satisfactorily and
professionally.
The fundamental basis of organisational disciplinary and grievance procedures is that they must be explicitly clear and accessible
to all.
Part (a):
An official and correctly applied disciplinary procedure has six steps which should be followed in the correct order and applied
equitably.
The Informal Talk.
This is the first step. If the disciplinary matter is of a minor nature and the individual has had until this occasion a good record,
then an informal meeting can often resolve the issue.
Reprimand or Oral Warning.
Here the manager draws the attention of the employee to unsatisfactory behaviour, a repeat of which could lead to formal
disciplinary proceedings.
Official or Written Warning.
A written warning is a serious matter. It draws the attention of the offending employee to a serious breach of conduct and remains
a recorded document on the employee’s employment history.
Such written documents can be used as evidence if further action is taken, especially dismissal.
Suspension or Lay-off.
If an offence is of a serious nature, if the employee has repeated an earlier offence or if there have been repeated problems then
an employee may be suspended from work for a period of time without pay.
Demotion.
This is a situation where an employee is demoted to a lower salary or position within an organisation. This is a very serious step
to take and can be regarded as a form. of internal dismissal. This course of action can have negative repercussions because the
employee concerned will feel dissatisfied and such feelings can affect their own work and that of others.
Dismissal.
This is the ultimate disciplinary measure and should be used only in the most extreme cases. As with demotion, the dismissal of
a staff member can lead to wider dissatisfaction amongst the employees.
The employee may nominate a representative at any stage of the procedure, especially at the more serious stages.
(ii) Describe the basis for the calculation of the provision for deferred taxation on first time adoption of IFRS
including the provision in the opening IFRS balance sheet. (4 marks)
(ii) A company has to apply IAS12 to the temporary differences between the carrying amount of the assets and liabilities in
its opening IFRS balance sheet (1 November 2003) and their tax bases (IFRS1 ‘First time adoption of IFRS’). The
deferred tax provision will be calculated using tax rates that have been enacted or substantially enacted by the balance
sheet date. The carrying values of the assets and liabilities at the opening balance sheet date will be determined by
reference to IFRS1 and will use the applicable IFRS in the first IFRS financial statements. Any adjustments required to
the deferred tax balance will be recognised directly in retained earnings.
Subsequent balance sheets (at 31 October 2004 and 31 October 2005) will be drawn up using the IFRS used in the
financial statements to 31 October 2005. The deferred tax provision will be adjusted as at 31 October 2004 and thenas at 31 October 2005 to reflect the temporary differences arising at those dates.
5 You are an audit manager in Fox & Steeple, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants, responsible for allocating staff
to the following three audits of financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2006:
(a) Blythe Co is a new audit client. This private company is a local manufacturer and distributor of sportswear. The
company’s finance director, Peter, sees little value in the audit and put it out to tender last year as a cost-cutting
exercise. In accordance with the requirements of the invitation to tender your firm indicated that there would not
be an interim audit.
(b) Huggins Co, a long-standing client, operates a national supermarket chain. Your firm provided Huggins Co with
corporate financial advice on obtaining a listing on a recognised stock exchange in 2005. Senior management
expects a thorough examination of the company’s computerised systems, and are also seeking assurance that
the annual report will not attract adverse criticism.
(c) Gray Co has been an audit client since 1999 after your firm advised management on a successful buyout. Gray
provides communication services and software solutions. Your firm provides Gray with technical advice on
financial reporting and tax services. Most recently you have been asked to conduct due diligence reviews on
potential acquisitions.
Required:
For these assignments, compare and contrast:
(i) the threats to independence;
(ii) the other professional and practical matters that arise; and
(iii) the implications for allocating staff.
(15 marks)
5 FOX & STEEPLE – THREE AUDIT ASSIGNMENTS
(i) Threats to independence
Self-interest
Tutorial note: This threat arises when a firm or a member of the audit team could benefit from a financial interest in, or
other self-interest conflict with, an assurance client.
■ A self-interest threat could potentially arise in respect of any (or all) of these assignments as, regardless of any fee
restrictions (e.g. per IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’), the auditor is remunerated by clients for
services provided.
■ This threat is likely to be greater for Huggins Co (larger/listed) and Gray Co (requires other services) than for Blythe Co
(audit a statutory necessity).
■ The self-interest threat may be greatest for Huggins Co. As a company listed on a recognised stock exchange it may
give prestige and credibility to Fox & Steeple (though this may be reciprocated). Fox & Steeple could be pressurised into
taking evasive action to avoid the loss of a listed client (e.g. concurring with an inappropriate accounting treatment).
Self-review
Tutorial note: This arises when, for example, any product or judgment of a previous engagement needs to be re-evaluated
in reaching conclusions on the audit engagement.
■ This threat is also likely to be greater for Huggins and Gray where Fox & Steeple is providing other (non-audit) services.
■ A self-review threat may be created by Fox & Steeple providing Huggins with a ‘thorough examination’ of its computerised
systems if it involves an extension of the procedures required to conduct an audit in accordance with International
Standards on Auditing (ISAs).
■ Appropriate safeguards must be put in place if Fox & Steeple assists Huggins in the performance of internal audit
activities. In particular, Fox & Steeple’s personnel must not act (or appear to act) in a capacity equivalent to a member
of Huggins’ management (e.g. reporting, in a management role, to those charged with governance).
■ Fox & Steeple may provide Gray with accounting and bookkeeping services, as Gray is not a listed entity, provided that
any self-review threat created is reduced to an acceptable level. In particular, in giving technical advice on financial
reporting, Fox & Steeple must take care not to make managerial decisions such as determining or changing journal
entries without obtaining Gray’s approval.
■ Taxation services comprise a broad range of services, including compliance, planning, provision of formal taxation
opinions and assistance in the resolution of tax disputes. Such assignments are generally not seen to create threats to
independence.
Tutorial note: It is assumed that the provision of tax services is permitted in the jurisdiction (i.e. that Fox and Steeple
are not providing such services if prohibited).
■ The due diligence reviews for Gray may create a self-review threat (e.g. on the fair valuation of net assets acquired).
However, safeguards may be available to reduce these threats to an acceptable level.
■ If staff involved in providing other services are also assigned to the audit, their work should be reviewed by more senior
staff not involved in the provision of the other services (to the extent that the other service is relevant to the audit).
■ The reporting lines of any staff involved in the audit of Huggins and the provision of other services for Huggins should
be different. (Similarly for Gray.)
Familiarity
Tutorial note: This arises when, by virtue of a close relationship with an audit client (or its management or employees) an
audit firm (or a member of the audit team) becomes too sympathetic to the client’s interests.
■ Long association of a senior member of an audit team with an audit client may create a familiarity threat. This threat
is likely to be greatest for Huggins, a long-standing client. It may also be significant for Gray as Fox & Steeple have had
dealings with this client for seven years now.
■ As Blythe is a new audit client this particular threat does not appear to be relevant.
■ Senior personnel should be rotated off the Huggins and Gray audit teams. If this is not possible (for either client), an
additional professional accountant who was not a member of the audit team should be required to independently review
the work done by the senior personnel.
■ The familiarity threat of using the same lead engagement partner on an audit over a prolonged period is particularly
relevant to Huggins, which is now a listed entity. IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’ requires that the
lead engagement partner should be rotated after a pre-defined period, normally no more than seven years. Although it
might be time for the lead engagement partner of Huggins to be changed, the current lead engagement partner may
continue to serve for the 2006 audit.
Tutorial note: Two additional years are permitted when an existing client becomes listed, since it may not be in the
client’s best interests to have an immediate rotation of engagement partner.
Intimidation
Tutorial note: This arises when a member of the audit team may be deterred from acting objectively and exercising
professional skepticism by threat (actual or perceived), from the audit client.
■ This threat is most likely to come from Blythe as auditors are threatened with a tendering process to keep fees down.
■ Peter may have already applied pressure to reduce inappropriately the extent of audit work performed in order to reduce
fees, by stipulating that there should not be an interim audit.
■ The audit senior allocated to Blythe will need to be experienced in standing up to client management personnel such as
Peter.
Tutorial note: ‘Correct’ classification under ‘ethical’, ‘other professional’, ‘practical’ or ‘staff implications’ is not as important
as identifying the matters.
(ii) Other professional and practical matters
Tutorial note: ‘Other professional’ includes quality control.
■ The experience of staff allocated to each assignment should be commensurate with the assessment of associated risk.
For example, there may be a risk that insufficient audit evidence is obtained within the budget for the audit of Blythe.
Huggins, as a listed client, carries a high reputational risk.
■ Sufficient appropriate staff should be allocated to each audit to ensure adequate quality control (in particular in the
direction, supervision, review of each assignment). It may be appropriate for a second partner to be assigned to carry
out a ‘hot review’ (before the auditor’s report is signed) of:
– Blythe, because it is the first audit of a new client; and
– Huggins, as it is listed.
■ Existing clients (Huggins and Gray) may already have some expectation regarding who should be assigned to their
audits. There is no reason why there should not be some continuity of staff providing appropriate safeguards are put in
place (e.g. to overcome any familiarity threat).
■ Senior staff assigned to Blythe should be alerted to the need to exercise a high degree of professional skepticism (in the
light of Peter’s attitude towards the audit).
■ New staff assigned to Huggins and Gray would perhaps be less likely to assume unquestioned honesty than staff
previously involved with these audits.
Logistics (practical)
■ All three assignments have the same financial year end, therefore there will be an element of ‘competition’ for the staff
to be assigned to the year-end visits and final audit assignments. As a listed company, Huggins is likely to have the
tightest reporting deadline and so have a ‘priority’ for staff.
■ Blythe is a local and private company. Staff involved in the year-end visit (e.g. to attend the physical inventory count)
should also be involved in the final audit. As this is a new client, staff assigned to this audit should get involved at every
stage to increase their knowledge and understanding of the business.
■ Huggins is a national operation and may require numerous staff to attend year-end procedures. It would not be expected
that all staff assigned to year-end visits should all be involved in the final audit.
Time/fee/staff budgets
■ Time budgets will need to be prepared for each assignment to determine manpower requirements (and to schedule audit
work).
(iii) Implications for allocating staff
■ Fox & Steeple should allocate staff so that those providing other services to Huggins and Gray (that may create a selfreview
threat) do not participate in the audit engagement.
Competence and due care (Qualifications/Specialisation)
■ All audit assignments will require competent staff.
■ Huggins will require staff with an in-depth knowledge of their computerised system.
■ Gray will require senior audit staff to be experienced in financial reporting matters specific to communications and
software solutions (e.g. in revenue recognition issues and accounting for internally-generated intangible assets).
■ Specialists providing tax services and undertaking the due diligence reviews for Gray may not be required to have any
involvement in the audit assignment.
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。
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-05
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2019-03-21
- 2020-10-11
- 2020-10-08
- 2020-10-11
- 2020-10-08
- 2020-08-13
- 2019-01-05
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-10-11
- 2020-10-11
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-10-08
- 2020-10-11
- 2020-10-08
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-10-08
- 2020-10-08
- 2020-08-13
- 2020-08-05
- 2020-08-13