ACCA考试F4模拟试题(2020-08-15)

正确答案：
(b) ISA 540 Audit of Accounting Estimates requires that auditors should obtain sufficient audit evidence as to whether an
accounting estimate, such as a warranty provision, is reasonable given the entity’s circumstances, and that disclosure is
appropriate. One, or a combination of the following approaches should be used:
Review and test the process used by management to develop the estimate
– Review contracts or orders for the terms of the warranty to gain an understanding of the obligation of Island Co
– Review correspondence with customers during the year to gain an understanding of claims already in progress at the
year end
– Perform. analytical procedures to compare the level of warranty provision year on year, and compare actual to budgeted
provisions. If possible disaggregate the data, for example, compare provision for specific types of machinery or customer
by customer
– Re-calculate the warranty provision
– Agree the percentage applied in the calculation to the stated accounting policy of Island Co
– Review board minutes for discussion of on-going warranty claims, and for approval of the amount provided
– Use management accounts to ascertain normal level of warranty rectification costs during the year
– Discuss with Kate Shannon the assumptions she used to determine the percentage used in her calculations
– Consider whether assumptions used are consistent with the auditors’ understanding of the business
– Compare prior year provision with actual expenditure on warranty claims in the accounting period
– Compare the current year provision with prior year and discuss any fluctuation with Kate Shannon.
Review subsequent events which confirm the estimate made
– Review any work carried out post year end on specific faults that have been provided for. Agree that all costs are included
in the year end provision.
– Agree cash expended on rectification work in the post balance sheet period to the cash book
– Agree cash expended on rectification work post year end to suppliers’ invoices, or to internal cost ledgers if work carried
out by employees of Island Co
– Read customer correspondence received post year end for any claims received since the year end.

正确答案：

(a) Deferred taxation

A deferred tax asset should be recognised for deductible temporary differences, unused tax losses and unused tax credits to the extent that it is probable that taxable profi t will be available against which the deductible temporary differences can be utilised. The recognition of deferred tax assets on losses carried forward does not seem to be in accordance with IAS 12 Income Taxes. Cate is not able to provide convincing evidence that suffi cient taxable profi ts will be generated against which the unused tax losses can be offset. According to IAS 12 the existence of unused tax losses is strong evidence that future taxable profi t may not be available against which to offset the losses. Therefore when an entity has a history of recent losses, the entity recognises deferred tax assets arising from unused tax losses only to the extent that the entity has suffi cient taxable temporary differences or there is convincing other evidence that suffi cient taxable profi t will be available. As Cate has a history of recent losses and as it does not have suffi cient taxable temporary differences, Cate needs to provide convincing other evidence that suffi cient taxable profi t would be available against which the unused tax losses could be offset. The unused tax losses in question did not result from identifi able causes, which were unlikely to recur (IAS 12) as the losses are due to ordinary business activities. Additionally there are no tax planning opportunities available to Cate that would create taxable profi t in the period in which the unused tax losses could be offset (IAS 12).

Thus at 31 May 2010 it is unlikely that the entity would generate taxable profi ts before the unused tax losses expired. The improved performance in 2010 would not be indicative of future good performance as Cate would have suffered a net loss before tax had it not been for the non-operating gains.

Cate’s anticipation of improved future trading could not alone be regarded as meeting the requirement for strong evidence of future profi ts. When assessing the use of carry-forward tax losses, weight should be given to revenues from existing orders or confi rmed contracts rather than those that are merely expected from improved trading. Estimates of future taxable profi ts can rarely be objectively verifi ed. Thus the recognition of deferred tax assets on losses carried forward is not in accordance with IAS 12 as Cate is not able to provide convincing evidence that suffi cient taxable profi ts would be generated against which the unused tax losses could be offset.

(b) Investment

Cate’s position for an investment where the investor has signifi cant infl uence and its method of calculating fair value can be challenged.

An asset’s recoverable amount represents its greatest value to the business in terms of its cash fl ows that it can generate i.e. the higher of fair value less costs to sell (which is what the asset can be sold for less direct selling expenses) and value in use (the cash fl ows that are expected to be generated from its continued use including those from its ultimate disposal). The asset’s recoverable amount is compared with its carrying value to indicate any impairment. Both net selling price (NSP) and value in use can be diffi cult to determine. However it is not always necessary to calculate both measures, as if the NSP or value in use is greater than the carrying amount, there is no need to estimate the other amount.

It should be possible in this case to calculate a fi gure for the recoverable amount. Cate’s view that market price cannot refl ect the fair value of signifi cant holdings of equity such as an investment in an associate is incorrect as IAS 36 prescribes the method of conducting the impairment test in such circumstances by stating that if there is no binding sale agreement but an asset is traded in an active market, fair value less costs to sell is the asset’s market price less the costs of disposal. Further, the appropriate market price is usually the current bid price.

Additionally the compliance with IAS 28, Investments in associates is in doubt in terms of the non-applicability of value in use when considering impairment. IAS 28 explains that in determining the value in use of the investments, an entity estimates:

(i) its share of the present value of the estimated future cash fl ows expected to be generated by the associate, including the cash fl ows from the operations of the associate and the proceeds on the ultimate disposal of the investment; or
(ii) the present value of the estimated future cash fl ows expected to arise from dividends to be received from the investment and from its ultimate disposal.

Estimates of future cash fl ows should be produced. These cash fl ows are then discounted to present value hence giving value in use.

It seems as though Cate wishes to avoid an impairment charge on the investment.

(c) Disposal group ‘held for sale’

IAS 27 Revised Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements moved IFRS to the use of the economic entity model. The economic entity approach treats all providers of equity capital as shareholders of the entity, even when they are not shareholders in the parent company. IFRS 5 has been amended such that if there is an intention to dispose of a controlling interest in a subsidiary which meets the defi nition of ‘held for sale’, then the net assets are classifi ed as ‘held for sale’, irrespective of whether the parent was expected to retain an interest after the disposal. A partial disposal of an interest in a subsidiary in which the parent company loses control but retains an interest as an associate or trade investment creates the recognition of a gain or loss on the entire interest. A gain or loss is recognised on the part that has been disposed of and a further holding gain or loss is recognised on the interest retained, being the difference between the fair value of the interest and the book value of the interest. The gains are recognised in the statement of comprehensive income. Any prior gains or loss recognised in other components of equity would now become realised in the statement of comprehensive income.

In this case, Cate should stop consolidating Date on a line-by-line basis from the date that control was lost. Further investigation is required into whether the holding is treated as an associate or trade investment. The agreement that Cate is no longer represented on the board or able to participate in management would suggest loss of signifi cant infl uence despite the 35% of voting rights retained. The retained interest would be recognised at fair value.

An entity classifi es a disposal group as held for sale if its carrying amount will be recovered mainly through selling the asset rather than through usage and intends to dispose of it in a single transaction.

The conditions for a non-current asset or disposal group to be classifi ed as held for sale are as follows:

(i) The assets must be available for immediate sale in their present condition and its sale must be highly probable.
(ii) The asset must be currently marketed actively at a price that is reasonable in relational to its current fair value.
(iii) The sale should be completed or expected to be so, within a year from the date of the classifi cation.
(iv) The actions required to complete the planned sale will have been made and it is unlikely that the plan will be signifi cantly changed or withdrawn.
(v) management is committed to a plan to sell.

Cate has not met all of the conditions of IFRS 5 but it could be argued that the best presentation in the fi nancial statements was that set out in IFRS 5 for the following reasons.

The issue of dilution is not addressed by IFRS and the decision not to subscribe to the issue of new shares of Date is clearly a change in the strategy of Cate. Further, by deciding not to subscribe to the issue of new shares of Date, Cate agreed to the dilution and the loss of control which could be argued is similar to a decision to sell shares while retaining a continuing interest in the entity. Also Date represents a separate line of business, which is a determining factor in IFRS 5, and information disclosed on IFRS 5 principles highlights the impact of Date on Cate’s fi nancial statements. Finally, the agreement between Date’s shareholders confi rms that Cate has lost control over its former subsidiary.

Therefore, in the absence of a specifi c Standard or Interpretation applying to this situation, IAS 8 Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and errors states that management should use its judgment and refer to other IFRS and the Framework.

Thus considering the requirements of IAS 27 (Para 32–37) and the above discussion, it could be concluded that the presentation based on IFRS 5 principles selected by the issuer was consistent with the accounting treatment required by IAS 27 when a parent company loses control of a subsidiary.

(d) Defi ned benefi t plan

The Plan is not a defi ned contribution plan because Cate has a legal or constructive obligation to pay further contributions if the fund does not have suffi cient assets to pay all employee benefi ts relating to employee service in the current and prior periods (IAS 19 Para 7). All other post-employment benefi t plans that do not qualify as a defi ned contribution plan are, by defi nition therefore defi ned benefi t plans. Defi ned benefi t plans may be unfunded, or they may be wholly or partly funded. Also IAS 19 (Para 26) indicates that Cate’s plan is a defi ned benefi t plan as IAS 19 provides examples where an entity’s obligation is not limited to the amount that it agrees to contribute to the fund. These examples include: (a) a plan benefi t formula that is not linked solely to the amount of contributions (which is the case in this instance); and (b) those informal practices that give rise to a constructive obligation. According to the terms of the Plan, if Cate opts to terminate, Cate is responsible for discharging the liability created by the plan. IAS 19 (Para 52) says that an entity should account not only for its legal obligation under the formal terms of a defi ned benefi t plan, but also for any constructive obligation that arises from the enterprise’s informal practices. Informal practices give rise to a constructive obligation where the enterprise has no realistic alternative but to pay employee benefi ts. Even if the Plan were not considered to be a defi ned benefi t plan under IAS 19, Cate would have a constructive obligation to provide the benefi t, having a history of paying benefi ts. The practice has created a valid expectation on the part of employees that the amounts will be paid in the future. Therefore Cate should account for the Plan as a defi ned benefi t plan in accordance with IAS 19. Cate has to recognise, at a minimum, its net present liability for the benefi ts to be paid under the Plan.

正确答案：
(ii) Accountability to equity investors
Voluntary disclosures are an effective way of redressing the information asymmetry that exists between management and
investors. In adding to mandatory content, voluntary disclosures give a fuller picture of the state of the company.
More information helps investors decide whether the company matches their risk, strategic and ethical criteria, and
expectations.
Makes the annual report more forward looking (predictive) whereas the majority of the numerical content is backward
facing on what has been.
Helps transparency in communicating more fully thereby better meeting the agency accountability to investors,
particularly shareholders.
There is a considerable amount of qualitative information that cannot be conveyed using statutory numbers (such as
strategy, ethical content, social reporting, etc).
Voluntary disclosure gives a more rounded and more complete view of the company, its activities, strategies, purposes
and values.
Voluntary disclosure enables the company to address specific shareholder concerns as they arise (such as responding
to negative publicity).
[Tutorial note: other valid points will attract marks]

正确答案：
5 BARTOLOME
(a) Senior audit staff leaving for employment with client
Ethical and professional issues
■ Leon’s independence is in doubt as he is threatened by self-interest. Leon’s objectivity in relation to the audit may be
influenced by a desire to please and impress Moreno, as a prospective employer.
■ There appears to be a lack of integrity on the part of James and/or Leon:
? Leon should have confided in an appropriately senior manager/partner of Bartolome. In not doing so he has
compromised the firm by having applied for a position with a client whilst assigned to the client.
? James may lack integrity in having advised Bartolome of the short-listing if he gave an undertaking to Leon not to
do so. (Conversely, James may be acting with integrity in advising Bartolome and as a matter of professional
courtesy.)
■ Leon should be removed from the audit assignment immediately regardless of whether or not he is finally appointed by
Moreno.
■ Leon should be given an oral warning (assuming this to be a first offence) for failing to adhere to Bartolome’s quality
control policies and procedures (requiring disclosure to the firm of any threat of involvement with an audit client).
■ The working papers for all interim audit work relating to Moreno performed under the supervision of Leon should be
reviewed as soon as possible, before the balance sheet date (at the end of the month).
Implications for continuation with assignment
The assignment can be properly continued with a new senior in charge of the audit of the financial statements for the year
ending 30 June 2005. Any planning of the year end and final audit work by Leon should be reviewed, amended as necessary
and approved before any further work is undertaken.