ACCA考试F3考试试题每日一练(2020-08-14)

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.

正确答案：
(b) Separation of the roles of CEO and chairman
Benefits of separation of roles
The separation of the roles of chief executive and chairman was first provided for in the UK by the 1992 Cadbury provisions
although it has been included in all codes since. Most relevant to the case is the terms of the ICGN clause s.11 and OECD
VI (E) both of which provide for the separation of these roles. In the UK it is covered in the combined code section A2.
The separation of roles offers the benefit that it frees up the chief executive to fully concentrate on the management of the
organisation without the necessity to report to shareholders or otherwise become distracted from his or her executive
responsibilities. The arrangement provides a position (that of chairman) that is expected to represent shareholders’ interests
and that is the point of contact into the company for shareholders. Some codes also require the chairman to represent the
interests of other stakeholders such as employees.
Having two people rather than one at the head of a large organisation removes the risks of ‘unfettered powers’ being
concentrated in a single individual and this is an important safeguard for investors concerned with excessive secrecy or
lack of transparency and accountability. The case of Robert Maxwell is a good illustration of a single dominating
executive chairman operating unchallenged and, in so doing, acting illegally. Having the two roles separated reduces
the risk of a conflict of interest in a single person being responsible for company performance whilst also reporting on
that performance to markets. Finally, the chairman provides a conduit for the concerns of non-executive directors who,
in turn, provide an important external representation of external concerns on boards of directors.
Tutorial note: Reference to codes other than the UK is also acceptable. In all cases, detailed (clause number) knowledge
of code provisions is not required.
Accountability and separation of roles
In terms of the separation of roles assisting in the accountability to shareholders, four points can be made.
The chairman scrutinises the chief executive’s management performance on behalf of the shareholders and will be
involved in approving the design of the chief executive’s reward package. It is the responsibility of the chairman to hold
the chief executive to account on shareholders’ behalfs.
Shareholders have an identified person (chairman) to hold accountable for the performance of their investment. Whilst
day-to-day contact will normally be with the investor relations department (or its equivalent) they can ultimately hold
the chairman to account.
The presence of a separate chairman ensures that a system is in place to ensure NEDs have a person to report to outside the
executive structure. This encourages the freedom of expression of NEDs to the chairman and this, in turn, enables issues to
be raised and acted upon when necessary.
The chairman is legally accountable and, in most cases, an experienced person. He/she can be independent and more
dispassionate because he or she is not intimately involved with day-to-day management issues.

正确答案：
(b) Implications for auditor’s report
(i) Selective revaluation of premises
The revaluations are clearly material to the balance sheet as $1·7 million and $5·4 million represent 5·5% and 17·6%
of total assets, respectively (and 23·1% in total). As the effects of the revaluation on line items in the financial statements
are clearly identified (e.g. revalued amount, depreciation, surplus in statement of changes in equity) the matter is not
pervasive.
The valuations of the nine properties after the year end provide additional evidence of conditions existing at the year end
and are therefore adjusting events per IAS 10 Events After the Balance Sheet Date.
Tutorial note: It is ‘now’ still less than three months after the year end so these valuations can reasonably be expected
to reflect year end values.
However, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment does not permit the selective revaluation of assets thus the whole class
of premises would need to have been revalued for the year to 31 March 2007 to change the measurement basis for this
reporting period.
The revaluation exercise is incomplete. Unless the remaining three properties are revalued before the auditor’s report on
the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 is signed off:
(1) the $7·1 revaluation made so far must be reversed to show all premises at depreciated cost as in previous years;
OR
(2) the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement regarding non-compliance with IAS 16.
When it is appropriate to adopt the revaluation model (e.g. next year) the change in accounting policy (from a cost model
to a revaluation model) should be accounted for in accordance with IAS 16 (i.e. as a revaluation).
Tutorial note: IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors does not apply to the initial
application of a policy to revalue assets in accordance with IAS 16.
Assuming the revaluation is written back, before giving an unmodified opinion, the auditor should consider why the three
properties were not revalued. In particular if there are any indicators of impairment (e.g. physical dilapidation) there
should be sufficient evidence on the working paper file to show that the carrying amount of these properties is not
materially greater than their recoverable amount (i.e. the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell).
If there is insufficient evidence to confirm that the three properties are not impaired (e.g. if the auditor was prevented
from inspecting the properties) the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of limitation on scope.
If there is evidence of material impairment but management fail to write down the carrying amount to recoverable
amount the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement regarding non-compliance with IAS 36
Impairment of Assets.

正确答案：
(b) Reward scheme
(i) Matters
■ If the entire year’s revenue ($303m) attracted store points then the cost of the reward scheme in the year is at
most $3·03m. This represents 1% of revenue, which is material to the income statement and very material
(31·9%) to profit before tax (PBT).
■ The proportion of customers who register for loyalty cards and the percentage of revenue (and profit) which they
represent (which may vary from store to store depending on customer profile).
■ In accordance with the assumption of accruals, which underlies the preparation and presentation of financial
statements (The Framework/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’), the expense and liability should be
recognised as revenue is earned. (It is of the nature of a discount.)
■ Any restrictions on the terms for converting points (e.g. whether they expire if not used within a specified time).
■ To the extent that points have been awarded but not redeemed at 31 March 2005, Volcan will have a liability at
the balance sheet date.
■ Agree the total balance due to customers at the year end under the reward scheme to the sum of the points on
individual customer reward cards.
■ The proportion of reward points awarded which are not expected to be claimed (e.g. the ‘take up’ of points awarded
may be only 80%, say).
■ Whether reward points are valued at selling price or cost. For example, if the average gross profit margin is 20%,
one point is equivalent to 0·8 cents of goods at cost.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ New/updated systems documentation explaining how:
– loyalty cards (and numbers) are issued to customers;
– points earned are recorded at the point of sale; and
– points are later redeemed on subsequent purchases.
■ Walk-through tests (e.g. on registering customer applications and issuing loyalty cards, awarding of points on
special offer items).
■ Tests of controls supporting the extent to which audit reliance is placed on the accounting and internal control
system. In particular, how points are extracted from the electronic tills (cash registers) and summarised into the
weekly/monthly financial data for each store which underlies the financial statements.
■ Analytical procedures on the value of points awarded by store per month with explanations of variations (‘variation
analysis’). For example, similar proportions (not exceeding 1% of revenue) of points in each month might be
expected by store – possibly increasing following any promotion of the ‘loyalty’ scheme.
Tutorial note: Within a close community, for example, a high proportion of customers might be expected to sign
up for the reward scheme. However, in big cities, where a large proportion of the customers might be transitory
(e.g. tourists or other visitors) the proportion may be much lower.
■ Tests of detail on a sample of transactions with customers undertaken at store visits. For example, for a sample of
copy till receipts:
– check the arithmetic accuracy of points awarded (1 per $1 spent + special offers);
– agree points awarded for special offers to that week’s special offers;
– for cash discounts taken confirm the conversion of points is against the opening balance of points awarded
(not against purchases just made).