ACCA考试F2每日一练(2019-03-09)

4 Assume today’s date is 5 February 2006.

Joanne is 37, she was born and until 2005 had lived all her life in Germany. She recently married Fraser, aged 38,

who is a UK resident, but who worked briefly in Germany. They have no children.

The couple moved to the UK to live permanently on 9 October 2005. Joanne was employed by an American company

in Germany, and she continued to work for them in the UK until the end of November 2005. Her earnings from the

American company were ￡5,000 per month. Joanne has not remitted any of the income she earned in Germany prior

to her arrival in the UK.

Joanne resigned from her job at the end of November 2005. The company did not hold her to the three months notice

stipulated in her contract, but still paid her for that period. In total, Joanne paid ￡4,200 in UK income tax under PAYE

for the tax tear 2005/06.

Joanne also wishes to sell the shares she holds in a German listed company. The shareholding cost the equivalent of

￡3,500 in September 1986, and its current value is ￡21,500. She intends to sell the shares in March 2006 and to

invest the proceeds from the sale in the UK. Joanne has made no other capital disposals in the year.

Prior to her leaving employment, Joanne investigated the possibility of starting her own business providing a German

translation service for UK companies, and took some advice on the matter. She paid consultancy fees of ￡5,000

(excluding value added tax (VAT)) and bought a computer for ￡2,000 (excluding VAT), both on 23 October 2005.

Joanne started trading on 1 December 2005. She made sales of ￡2,000 in December, and estimates that her sales

will rise by ￡1,000 every month to a maximum of ￡7,000 per month. Joanne believes that her monthly expenses of

￡400 (excluding VAT) will remain constant. Her year end will be 31 March, and the first accounts will be drawn up

to 31 March 2006.

Although Joanne has registered her business for tax purposes with the Revenue, she has not registered for VAT and

is unsure what is required of her in this respect.

Required:

(a) State, giving reasons, whether Joanne will be treated as resident or non-resident in the UK for the year of

assessment 2005/06, together with the basis on which her income and gains of that year will be subject to

UK taxation. (3 marks)

3 Johan, a public limited company, operates in the telecommunications industry. The industry is capital intensive with

heavy investment in licences and network infrastructure. Competition in the sector is fierce and technological

advances are a characteristic of the industry. Johan has responded to these factors by offering incentives to customers

and, in an attempt to acquire and retain them, Johan purchased a telecom licence on 1 December 2006 for

$120 million. The licence has a term of six years and cannot be used until the network assets and infrastructure are

ready for use. The related network assets and infrastructure became ready for use on 1 December 2007. Johan could

not operate in the country without the licence and is not permitted to sell the licence. Johan expects its subscriber

base to grow over the period of the licence but is disappointed with its market share for the year to 30 November

2008. The licence agreement does not deal with the renewal of the licence but there is an expectation that the

regulator will grant a single renewal for the same period of time as long as certain criteria regarding network build

quality and service quality are met. Johan has no experience of the charge that will be made by the regulator for the

renewal but other licences have been renewed at a nominal cost. The licence is currently stated at its original cost of

$120 million in the statement of financial position under non-current assets.

Johan is considering extending its network and has carried out a feasibility study during the year to 30 November

2008. The design and planning department of Johan identified five possible geographical areas for the extension of

its network. The internal costs of this study were $150,000 and the external costs were $100,000 during the year

to 30 November 2008. Following the feasibility study, Johan chose a geographical area where it was going to install

a base station for the telephone network. The location of the base station was dependent upon getting planning

permission. A further independent study has been carried out by third party consultants in an attempt to provide a

preferred location in the area, as there is a need for the optimal operation of the network in terms of signal quality

and coverage. Johan proposes to build a base station on the recommended site on which planning permission has

been obtained. The third party consultants have charged $50,000 for the study. Additionally Johan has paid

$300,000 as a single payment together with $60,000 a month to the government of the region for access to the land

upon which the base station will be situated. The contract with the government is for a period of 12 years and

commenced on 1 November 2008. There is no right of renewal of the contract and legal title to the land remains with

the government.

Johan purchases telephone handsets from a manufacturer for $200 each, and sells the handsets direct to customers

for $150 if they purchase call credit (call card) in advance on what is called a prepaid phone. The costs of selling the

handset are estimated at $1 per set. The customers using a prepaid phone pay $21 for each call card at the purchase

date. Call cards expire six months from the date of first sale. There is an average unused call credit of $3 per card

after six months and the card is activated when sold.

Johan also sells handsets to dealers for $150 and invoices the dealers for those handsets. The dealer can return the

handset up to a service contract being signed by a customer. When the customer signs a service contract, the

customer receives the handset free of charge. Johan allows the dealer a commission of $280 on the connection of a

customer and the transaction with the dealer is settled net by a payment of $130 by Johan to the dealer being the

cost of the handset to the dealer ($150) deducted from the commission ($280). The handset cannot be sold

separately by the dealer and the service contract lasts for a 12 month period. Dealers do not sell prepaid phones, and

Johan receives monthly revenue from the service contract.

The chief operating officer, a non-accountant, has asked for an explanation of the accounting principles and practices

which should be used to account for the above events.

Required:

Discuss the principles and practices which should be used in the financial year to 30 November 2008 to account

for:

(a) the licences; (8 marks)

(c) Explain the extent to which you should plan to place reliance on analytical procedures as audit evidence.

(6 marks)

1 Rowlands & Medeleev (R&M), a major listed European civil engineering company, was successful in its bid to become

principal (lead) contractor to build the Giant Dam Project in an East Asian country. The board of R&M prided itself in

observing the highest standards of corporate governance. R&M’s client, the government of the East Asian country, had

taken into account several factors in appointing the principal contractor including each bidder’s track record in large

civil engineering projects, the value of the bid and a statement, required from each bidder, on how it would deal with

the ‘sensitive issues’ and publicity that might arise as a result of the project.

The Giant Dam Project was seen as vital to the East Asian country’s economic development as it would provide a

large amount of hydroelectric power. This was seen as a ‘clean energy’ driver of future economic growth. The

government was keen to point out that because hydroelectric power did not involve the burning of fossil fuels, the

power would be environmentally clean and would contribute to the East Asian country’s ability to meet its

internationally agreed carbon emission targets. This, in turn, would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases

in the environment. Critics, such as the environmental pressure group ‘Stop-the-dam’, however, argued that the

project was far too large and the cost to the local environment would be unacceptable. Stop-the-dam was highly

organised and, according to press reports in Europe, was capable of disrupting progress on the dam by measures such

as creating ‘human barriers’ to the site and hiding people in tunnels who would have to be physically removed before

proceeding. A spokesman for Stop-the-dam said it would definitely be attempting to resist the Giant Dam Project when

construction started.

The project was intended to dam one of the region’s largest rivers, thus creating a massive lake behind it. The lake

would, the critics claimed, not only displace an estimated 100,000 people from their homes, but would also flood

productive farmland and destroy several rare plant and animal habitats. A number of important archaeological sites

would also be lost. The largest community to be relocated was the indigenous First Nation people who had lived on

and farmed the land for an estimated thousand years. A spokesman for the First Nation community said that the ‘true

price’ of hydroelectric power was ‘misery and cruelty’. A press report said that whilst the First Nation would be unlikely

to disrupt the building of the dam, it was highly likely that they would protest and also attempt to mobilise opinion in

other parts of the world against the Giant Dam Project.

The board of R&M was fully aware of the controversy when it submitted its tender to build the dam. The finance

director, Sally Grignard, had insisted on putting an amount into the tender for the management of ‘local risks’. Sally

was also responsible for the financing of the project for R&M. Although the client was expected to release money in

several ‘interim payments’ as the various parts of the project were completed to strict time deadlines, she anticipated

a number of working capital challenges for R&M, especially near the beginning where a number of early stage costs

would need to be incurred. There would, she explained, also be financing issues in managing the cash flows to R&M’s

many subcontractors. Although the major banks financed the client through a lending syndicate, R&M’s usual bank

said it was wary of lending directly to R&M for the Giant Dam Project because of the potential negative publicity that

might result. Another bank said it would provide R&M with its early stage working capital needs on the understanding

that its involvement in financing R&M to undertake the Giant Dam Project was not disclosed. A press statement from

Stop-the-dam said that it would do all it could to discover R&M’s financial lenders and publicly expose them. Sally

told the R&M board that some debt financing would be essential until the first interim payments from the client

became available.

When it was announced that R&M had won the contract to build the Giant Dam Project, some of its institutional

shareholders contacted Richard Markovnikoff, the chairman. They wanted reassurance that the company had fully

taken the environmental issues and other risks into account. One fund manager asked if Mr Markovnikoff could

explain the sustainability implications of the project to assess whether R&M shares were still suitable for his

environmentally sensitive clients. Mr Markovnikoff said, through the company’s investor relations department, that he

intended to give a statement at the next annual general meeting (AGM) that he hoped would address these

environmental concerns. He would also, he said, make a statement on the importance of confidentiality in the

financing of the early stage working capital needs.

(a) Any large project such as the Giant Dam Project has a number of stakeholders.

Required:

(i) Define the terms ‘stakeholder’ and ‘stakeholder claim’, and identify from the case FOUR of R&M’s

external stakeholders as it carries out the Giant Dam Project; (6 marks)