ACCA考试F4每日一练(2019-01-04)

发布时间：2019-01-04

Question：Which of the following statements describe the regulatory governance framework for UK companies?

A.Legal and non-legal.

B.Legal only.

C.Voluntary.

D.Non-legal only.

The correct answer is: Legal and non-legal.

Some rules on directors' duties and other elements concerning the management of companies can be found in the Companies Act and the UK Corporate Governance Code.

下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题，供大家学习参考。

(c) State the specific inquiries you should make of Robson Construction Co’s management relevant to its

accounting for construction contracts. (6 marks)

正确答案：
(c) Specific inquiries – accounting for construction contracts
Tutorial note: This answer is illustrative of the types of inquiry that should be made. Other relevant answer points will be
awarded similar credit. For each full mark to be earned an inquiry should address the specifics of Robson (e.g. that its
accounting policies are ‘generally less prudent’). The identification of asset overstatement/liability understatement may
reduce the purchase price offered by Prescott.
■ Are any constructions being undertaken without signed contracts?
Tutorial note: Any expenditure on constructions without contracts (e.g. of a speculative nature, perhaps to keep the
workforce employed) must be accounted for under IAS ‘Inventories’; revenue cannot be recognised nor profit taken.
■ Is full provision made for future losses foreseen on loss-making contracts?
Tutorial note: The information in the brief is that ‘provisions are made’. The level of provision is not indicated and
could be less than full.
■ Which contracts started during the year are likely to be/have been identified as loss-making (for which no provision has
yet been made)?
Tutorial note: Profits and losses are only determined by contract at each financial year end.
■ What are management’s assumptions and judgments on the likely future outcome on the Sarwar contract (and other
actual and contingent liabilities)?
Tutorial note: Robson would be imprudent if it underestimates the probability of an unfavourable outcome (or
overestimates the likelihood of successful recourse).
■ What claims history has Robson experienced? (What proportion of contracts have been subject to claims? What
proportion of claims brought have been successful? How have they been settled? Under insurance? Out-of-court
settlement?) How effective are the penalty clauses? (Is Robson having to pay penalties for overrunning on contracts?)
■ What are the actual useful lives of assets used in construction? What level of losses are made on disposal?
Tutorial note: If such assets are depreciated over useful lives that are estimated to be too long, depreciation costs
incurred to date (and estimated depreciation to be included in costs to completion) will be understated. This will result
in too much profit/too little loss being calculated on contracts.
■ What is the cause of losses on contracts? For example, if due to theft of building supplies Robson’s management is not
exercising sufficient control over the company’s assets.

(ii) On 1 July 2006 Petrie introduced a 10-year warranty on all sales of its entire range of stainless steel

cookware. Sales of stainless steel cookware for the year ended 31 March 2007 totalled $18·2 million. The

notes to the financial statements disclose the following:

‘Since 1 July 2006, the company’s stainless steel cookware is guaranteed to be free from defects in

materials and workmanship under normal household use within a 10-year guarantee period. No provision

has been recognised as the amount of the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability.’

(4 marks)

Your auditor’s report on the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2006 was unmodified.

Required:

Identify and comment on the implications of these two matters for your auditor’s report on the financial

statements of Petrie Co for the year ended 31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the matters above.

正确答案：
(ii) 10-year guarantee
$18·2 million stainless steel cookware sales amount to 43·1% of revenue and are therefore material. However, the
guarantee was only introduced three months into the year, say in respect of $13·6 million (3/4 × 18·2 million) i.e.
approximately 32% of revenue.
The draft note disclosure could indicate that Petrie’s management believes that Petrie has a legal obligation in respect
of the guarantee, that is not remote and likely to be material (otherwise no disclosure would have been required).
A best estimate of the obligation amounting to 5% profit before tax (or more) is likely to be considered material, i.e.
$90,000 (or more). Therefore, if it is probable that 0·66% of sales made under guarantee will be returned for refund,
this would require a warranty provision that would be material.
Tutorial note: The return of 2/3% of sales over a 10-year period may well be probable.
Clearly there is a present obligation as a result of a past obligating event for sales made during the nine months to
31 March 2007. Although the likelihood of outflow under the guarantee is likely to be insignificant (even remote) it is
probable that some outflow will be needed to settle the class of such obligations.
The note in the financial statements is disclosing this matter as a contingent liability. This term encompasses liabilities
that do not meet the recognition criteria (e.g. of reliable measurement in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent
Liabilities and Contingent Assets).
However, it is extremely rare that no reliable estimate can be made (IAS 37) – the use of estimates being essential to
the preparation of financial statements. Petrie’s management must make a best estimate of the cost of refunds/repairs
under guarantee taking into account, for example:
■ the proportion of sales during the nine months to 31 March 2007 that have been returned under guarantee at the
balance sheet date (and in the post balance sheet event period);
■ the average age of cookware showing a defect;
■ the expected cost of a replacement item (as a refund of replacement is more likely than a repair, say).
If management do not make a provision for the best estimate of the obligation the audit opinion should be qualified
‘except for’ non-compliance with IAS 37 (no provision made). The disclosure made in the note to the financial
statements, however detailed, is not a substitute for making the provision.
Tutorial note: No marks will be awarded for suggesting that an emphasis of matter of paragraph would be appropriate
(drawing attention to the matter more fully explained in the note).
Management’s claim that the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability does not give rise to a limitation
on scope on the audit. The auditor has sufficient evidence of the non-compliance with IAS 37 and disagrees with it.

(ii) If a partner, who is an actuary, provides valuation services to an audit client, can we continue with the audit?

(3 marks)

Required:

For each of the three questions, explain the threats to objectivity that may arise and the safeguards that

should be available to manage them to an acceptable level.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three questions above.

正确答案：
(ii) Actuarial services to an audit client
IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’ does not deal specifically with actuarial valuation services but with
valuation services in general.
A valuation comprises:
■ making assumptions about the future;
■ applying certain methodologies and techniques;
■ computing a value (or range of values) for an asset, a liability or for a business as a whole.
A self-review threat may be created when a firm or network firm2 performs a valuation for a financial statement audit
client that is to be incorporated into the client’s financial statements.
As an actuarial valuation service is likely to involve the valuation of matters material to the financial statements (e.g. the
present value of obligations) and the valuation involves a significant degree of subjectivity (e.g. length of service), the
self-review threat created cannot be reduced to an acceptable level of the application of any safeguard. Accordingly:
■ such valuation services should not be provided; or
■ the firm should withdraw from the financial statement audit engagement.
If the net liability was not material to the financial statements the self-review threat may be reduced to an acceptable
level by the application of safeguards such as:
■ involving an additional professional accountant who was not a member of the audit team to review the work done
by the actuary;
■ confirming with the audit client their understanding of the underlying assumptions of the valuation and the
methodology to be used and obtaining approval for their use;
■ obtaining the audit client‘s acknowledgement of responsibility for the results of the work performed by the firm; and
■ making arrangements so that the partner providing the actuarial services does not participate in the audit
engagement.

5 You are the audit manager for three clients of Bertie & Co, a firm of Chartered Certified Accountants. The financial

year end for each client is 30 September 2007.

You are reviewing the audit senior’s proposed audit reports for two clients, Alpha Co and Deema Co.

Alpha Co, a listed company, permanently closed several factories in May 2007, with all costs of closure finalised and

paid in August 2007. The factories all produced the same item, which contributed 10% of Alpha Co’s total revenue

for the year ended 30 September 2007 (2006 – 23%). The closure has been discussed accurately and fully in the

chairman’s statement and Directors’ Report. However, the closure is not mentioned in the notes to the financial

statements, nor separately disclosed on the financial statements.

The audit senior has proposed an unmodified audit opinion for Alpha Co as the matter has been fully addressed in

the chairman’s statement and Directors’ Report.

In October 2007 a legal claim was filed against Deema Co, a retailer of toys. The claim is from a customer who slipped

on a greasy step outside one of the retail outlets. The matter has been fully disclosed as a material contingent liability

in the notes to the financial statements, and audit working papers provide sufficient evidence that no provision is

necessary as Deema Co’s lawyers have stated in writing that the likelihood of the claim succeeding is only possible.

The amount of the claim is fixed and is adequately covered by cash resources.

The audit senior proposes that the audit opinion for Deema Co should not be qualified, but that an emphasis of matter

paragraph should be included after the audit opinion to highlight the situation.

Hugh Co was incorporated in October 2006, using a bank loan for finance. Revenue for the first year of trading is

$750,000, and there are hopes of rapid growth in the next few years. The business retails luxury hand made wooden

toys, currently in a single retail outlet. The two directors (who also own all of the shares in Hugh Co) are aware that

due to the small size of the company, the financial statements do not have to be subject to annual external audit, but

they are unsure whether there would be any benefit in a voluntary audit of the first year financial statements. The

directors are also aware that a review of the financial statements could be performed as an alternative to a full audit.

Hugh Co currently employs a part-time, part-qualified accountant, Monty Parkes, who has prepared a year end

balance sheet and income statement, and who produces summary management accounts every three months.

Required:

(a) Evaluate whether the audit senior’s proposed audit report is appropriate, and where you disagree with the

proposed report, recommend the amendment necessary to the audit report of:

(i) Alpha Co; (6 marks)

正确答案：
5 BERTIE & CO
(a) (i) Alpha Co
The factory closures constitute a discontinued operation per IFRS 5 Non-Current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued
Operations, due to the discontinuance of a separate major component of the business. It is a major component due to
the 10% contribution to revenue in the year to 30 September 2007 and 23% contribution in 2006. It is a separate
business component of the company due to the factories having made only one item, indicating a separate income
generating unit.
Under IFRS 5 there must be separate disclosure on the face of the income statement of the post tax results of the
discontinued operation, and of any profit or loss resulting from the closures. The revenue and costs of the discontinued
operation should be separately disclosed either on the face of the income statement or in the notes to the financial
statements. Cash flows relating to the discontinued operation should also be separately disclosed per IAS 7 Cash Flow
Statements.
In addition, as Alpha Co is a listed company, IFRS 8 Operating Segments requires separate segmental disclosure of
discontinued operations.
Failure to disclose the above information in the financial statements is a material breach of International Accounting
Standards. The audit opinion should therefore be qualified on the grounds of disagreement on disclosure (IFRS 5,
IAS 7 and IFRS 8). The matter is material, but not pervasive, and therefore an ‘except for’ opinion should be issued.
The opinion paragraph should clearly state the reason for the disagreement, and an indication of the financial
significance of the matter.
The audit opinion relates only to the financial statements which have been audited, and the contents of the other
information (chairman’s statement and Directors’ Report) are irrelevant when deciding if the financial statements show
a true and fair view, or are fairly presented.
Tutorial note: there is no indication in the question scenario that Alpha Co is in financial or operational difficulty
therefore no marks are awarded for irrelevant discussion of going concern issues and the resultant impact on the audit
opinion.

声明：本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传，本网站不拥有所有权，未作人工编辑处理，也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容，欢迎发送邮件至：contact@51tk.com 进行举报，并提供相关证据，工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你，一经查实，本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

站内搜索
热门标签