ACCA F2知识点：直接歧视 Direct discrimination

正确答案：
3 All organisations rely upon their staff for success. However, recruitment of staff can be time consuming; a drain on resources and the necessary expertise may not exist within the organisation.
(a) Internal promotion describes the situation where an organisation has an explicit policy to promote from within and where there is a clear and transparent career structure. This is typical of many professional bodies, large organisations and public services.
The advantages of internal promotion are that it acts as a source of motivation, provides good general morale amongst employees and illustrates the organisation’s commitment to encouraging advancement. Recruitment is expensive and internal promotion is relatively inexpensive in terms of time, money and induction costs and since staff seeking promotion are known to the employer, training costs are minimised. Finally, the culture of the organisation is better understood by the individual.

正确答案：
(a)MaximisinggroupprofitDivisionLhasenoughcapacitytosupplybothDivisionManditsexternalcustomerswithcomponentL.Therefore,incrementalcostofDivisionMbuyingexternallyisasfollows:CostperunitofcomponentLwhenboughtfromexternalsupplier:$37CostperunitforDivisionLofmakingcomponentL:$20.ThereforeincrementalcosttogroupofeachunitofcomponentLbeingboughtinbyDivisionMratherthantransferredinternally:$17($37–20).Fromthegroup’spointofview,themostprofitablecourseofactionisthereforethatall120,000unitsofcomponentLshouldbetransferredinternally.(b)CalculatingtotalgroupprofitTotalgroupprofitswillbeasfollows:DivisionL:Contributionearnedpertransferredcomponent=$40–$20=$20Profitearnedpercomponentsoldexternally=$40–$24=$16(c)ProblemswithcurrenttransferpriceandsuggestedalternativeTheproblemisthatthecurrenttransferpriceof$40perunitisnowtoohigh.Whilstthishasnotbeenaproblembeforesinceexternalsupplierswerecharging$42perunit,itisaproblemnowthatDivisionMhasbeenofferedcomponentLfor$37perunit.IfDivisionMnowactsinitsowninterestsratherthantheinterestsofthegroupasawhole,itwillbuycomponentLfromtheexternalsupplierratherthanfromDivisionL.ThiswillmeanthattheprofitsofthegroupwillfallsubstantiallyandDivisionLwillhavesignificantunusedcapacity.Consequently,DivisionLneedstoreduceitsprice.Thecurrentpricedoesnotreflectthefactthattherearenosellinganddistributioncostsassociatedwithtransferringinternally,i.e.thecostofsellinginternallyis$4lessforDivisionLthansellingexternally.So,itcouldreducethepriceto$36andstillmakethesameprofitonthesesalesasonitsexternalsales.ThiswouldthereforebethesuggestedtransferpricesothatDivisionMisstillsaving$1perunitcomparedtotheexternalprice.Atransferpriceof$37wouldalsopresumablybeacceptabletoDivisionMsincethisisthesameastheexternalsupplierisoffering.

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
(b) (i) Cost of investment on acquisition of Dylan Co
Matters to consider
According to the schedule provided by the client, the cost of investment comprises three elements. One matter to
consider is whether the cost of investment is complete.
It appears that no legal or professional fees have been included in the cost of investment (unless included within the
heading ‘cash consideration’). Directly attributable costs should be included per IFRS 3 Business Combinations, and
there is a risk that these costs may be expensed in error, leading to understatement of the investment.
The cash consideration of $2·5 million is the least problematical component. The only matter to consider is whether the
cash has actually been paid. Given that Dylan Co was acquired in the last month of the financial year it is possible that
the amount had not been paid before the year end, in which case the amount should be recognised as a current liability
on the statement of financial position (balance sheet). However, this seems unlikely given that normally control of an
acquired company only passes to the acquirer on cash payment.
IFRS 3 states that the cost of investment should be recognised at fair value, which means that deferred consideration
should be discounted to present value at the date of acquisition. If the consideration payable on 31 January 2009 has
not been discounted, the cost of investment, and the corresponding liability, will be overstated. It is possible that the
impact of discounting the $1·5 million payable one year after acquisition would be immaterial to the financial
statements, in which case it would be acceptable to leave the consideration at face value within the cost of investment.
Contingent consideration should be accrued if it is probable to be paid. Here the amount is payable if revenue growth
targets are achieved over the next four years. The auditor must therefore assess the probability of the targets being
achieved, using forecasts and projections of Maxwell Co’s revenue. Such information is inherently subjective, and could
have been manipulated, if prepared by the vendor of Maxwell Co, in order to secure the deal and maximise
consideration. Here it will be crucial to be sceptical when reviewing the forecasts, and the assumptions underlying the
data. The management of Rosie Co should have reached their own opinion on the probability of paying the contingent
consideration, but they may have relied heavily on information provided at the time of the acquisition.
Audit evidence
– Agreement of the monetary value and payment dates of the consideration per the client schedule to legal
documentation signed by vendor and acquirer.
– Agreement of $2·5 million paid to Rosie Co’s bank statement and cash book prior to year end. If payment occurs
after year end confirm that a current liability is recognised on the individual company and consolidated statement
of financial position (balance sheet).
– Board minutes approving the payment.
– Recomputation of discounting calculations applied to deferred and contingent consideration.
– Agreement that the discount rate used is pre-tax, and reflects current market assessment of the time value of money
(e.g. by comparison to Rosie Co’s weighted average cost of capital).
– Revenue and profit projections for the period until January 2012, checked for arithmetic accuracy.
– A review of assumptions used in the projections, and agreement that the assumptions are comparable with the
auditor’s understanding of Dylan Co’s business.
Tutorial note: As the scenario states that Chien & Co has audited Dylan Co for several years, it is reasonable to rely on
their cumulative knowledge and understanding of the business in auditing the revenue projections.