2020年ACCA考试：管理会计专业词汇汇总(7)

正确答案：
(b) FAQs
(i) Information Technology (IT) services
The greatest threats to independence arise from the provision of any service which involves auditors in:
■ auditing their own work;
■ the decision-making process;
■ undertaking management functions of the client.
IT services potentially pose all these threats:
■ self-interest threat – on-going services that provide a large proportion of Boleyn’s annual fees will contribute to a
threat to objectivity;
■ self-review threat – e.g. when IT services provided involve (i) the supervision of the audit client’s employees in the
performance of their normal duties; or (ii) the origination of electronic data evidencing the occurrence of
transactions;
■ management threat – e.g. when the IT services involve making judgments and taking decisions that are properly
the responsibility of management.
Thus, services that involve the design and implementation of financial IT systems that are used to generate information
forming a significant part of a client’s accounting system or financial statements is likely to create significant ethical
threats.
Possible safeguards include:
■ disclosing and discussing fees with the client’s audit committees (or others charged with corporate governance);
■ the audit client providing a written acknowledgment (e.g. in an engagement letter) of its responsibility for:
– establishing and monitoring a system of internal controls;
– the operation of the system (hardware or software); and
– the data used or generated by the system;
■ the designation by the audit client of a competent employee (preferably within senior management) with
responsibility to make all management decisions regarding the design and implementation of the hardware or
software system;
■ evaluation of the adequacy and results of the design and implementation of the system by the audit client;
■ suitable allocation of work within the firm (i.e. staff providing the IT services not being involved in the audit
engagement and having different reporting lines); and
■ review of the audit opinion by an audit partner who is not involved in the audit engagement.
Services in connection with the assessment, design and implementation of internal accounting controls and risk
management controls are not considered to create a threat to independence provided that the firm’s personnel do not
perform. management functions.
It would be acceptable to provide IT services to an audit client where the systems are not important to any significant
part of the accounting system or the production of financial statements and do not have significant reliance placed on
them by the auditors, provided that:
■ a member of the client’s management has been designated to receive and take responsibility for the results of the
IT work undertaken; and
■ appropriate safeguards are put in place (e.g. using separate partners and staff for each role and review by a partner
not involved in the audit engagement).
It would also generally be acceptable to provide and install off-the-shelf accounting packages to an audit client.

正确答案：
(d) Professional accountant’s liability
Liability for reporting on PFI
Independent accountants may be required to report on PFI for many reasons (e.g. to help secure a bank loan). Such forecasts
and projections are inherently unreliable. If the forecast or projection does not materialise, and the client or lenders (or
investors) consequently sustain financial loss, the accountant may face lawsuits claiming financial loss.
Courts in different jurisdictions use various criteria to define the group of persons to whom independent accountants may be
held liable for providing a report on an inaccurate forecast or projection. The most common of these are that an accountant
is liable to persons with whom there is proximity:
(i) only (i.e. the client who engaged the independent accountant);
(ii) or whose relationship with the accountant sufficiently approaches privity;
(iii) and to persons or members of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance the accountant supplied the
information or knew that the recipient of the information intended to supply it;
(iv) and to persons who reasonably can be foreseen to rely on the information.
Measures to reduce liability
As significant assumptions will be essential to a reader’s understanding of a financial forecast, the independent accountant
should ensure that they are adequately disclosed and clearly stated to be the management’s responsibility. Hypothetical
assumptions should be clearly distinguished from best estimates.
The introduction to any forecast (and/or report thereon) should include a caveat that the prospective results may not be
attained. Specific and extensive warnings (‘the actual results … will vary’) and disclaimers (‘we do not express an opinion’)
may be effective in protecting an independent accountant sued for inaccuracies in forecasts or projections that they have
reported on.
Any report to a third party should state:
■ for whom it is prepared, who is entitled to rely on it (if anyone) and for what purpose;
■ that the engagement was undertaken in accordance with the engagement terms;
■ the work performed and the findings.
An independent accountant’s report should avoid inappropriate and open-ended wording, for example, ‘we certify …’ and ‘we
obtained all the explanations we considered necessary’.
Engagement terms to report on PFI should include an appropriate liability cap that is reasonable given the specific
circumstances of the engagement.
The independent accountant may be able to obtain indemnity from a client in respect of claims from third parties. Such ‘hold
harmless’ clauses obligate the client to indemnify the independent accountant from third party claims.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Matters to consider
Materiality
The receivable represents only 0·2% (25,000/12 million x 100) of total assets so is immaterial in monetary terms.
However, the details of the transaction could make it material by nature.
The amount is outstanding from a company under the control of Pulp Co’s chairman. Readers of the financial statements
would be interested to know the details of this transaction, which currently is not disclosed. Elements of the transaction
could be subject to bias, specifically the repayment terms, which appear to be beyond normal commercial credit terms.
Paul Sheffield may have used his influence over the two companies to ‘engineer’ the transaction. Disclosure is necessary
due to the nature of the transaction, the monetary value is irrelevant.
A further matter to consider is whether this is a one-off transaction, or indicative of further transactions between the two
companies.
Relevant accounting standard
The definitions in IAS 24 must be carefully considered to establish whether this actually constitutes a related party
transaction. The standard specifically states that two entities are not necessarily related parties just because they have
a director or other member of key management in common. The audit senior states that Jarvis Co is controlled by Peter
Sheffield, who is also the chairman of Pulp Co. It seems that Peter Sheffield is in a position of control/significant influence
over the two companies (though this would have to be clarified through further audit procedures), and thus the two
companies are likely to be perceived as related.
IAS 24 requires full disclosure of the following in respect of related party transactions:
– the nature of the related party relationship,
– the amount of the transaction,
– the amount of any balances outstanding including terms and conditions, details of security offered, and the nature
of consideration to be provided in settlement,
– any allowances for receivables and associated expense.
There is currently a breach of IAS 24 as no disclosure has been made in the notes to the financial statements. If not
amended, the audit opinion on the financial statements should be qualified with an ‘except for’ disagreement. In
addition, if practicable, the auditor’s report should include the information that would have been included in the financial
statements had the requirements of IAS 24 been adhered to.
Valuation and classification of the receivable
A receivable should only be recognised if it will give rise to future economic benefit, i.e. a future cash inflow. It appears
that the receivable is long outstanding – if the amount is unlikely to be recovered then it should be written off as a bad
debt and the associated expense recognised. It is possible that assets and profits are overstated.
Although a representation has been received indicating that the amount will be paid to Pulp Co, the auditor should be
sceptical of this claim given that the same representation was given last year, and the amount was not subsequently
recovered. The $25,000 could be recoverable in the long term, in which case the receivable should be reclassified as
a non-current asset. The amount advanced to Jarvis Co could effectively be an investment rather than a short term
receivable. Correct classification on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) is crucial for the financial
statements to properly show the liquidity position of the company at the year end.
Tutorial note: Digressions into management imposing a limitation in scope by withholding evidence are irrelevant in this
case, as the scenario states that the only evidence that the auditors have asked for is a management representation.
There is no indication in the scenario that the auditors have asked for, and been refused any evidence.