ACCA考试F5每日一练(2019-03-14)

发布时间：2019-03-14

1.Which of the following involves an offer which may only be accepted by performing an action?

A.A collateral contract

B. A unilateral contract

C.A bilateral contract

2.An agency relationship which is made retrospectively is referred to by which of the following terms?

A. Agency by estoppel

B.Agency by ratification

C.Agency by necessity

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。

(a) An assistant of yours has been criticised over a piece of assessed work that he produced for his study course for giving the definition of a non-current asset as ‘a physical asset of substantial cost, owned by the company, which will last longer than one year’.

Required:

Provide an explanation to your assistant of the weaknesses in his definition of non-current assets when

compared to the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) view of assets. (4 marks)

(b) The same assistant has encountered the following matters during the preparation of the draft financial statements of Darby for the year ending 30 September 2009. He has given an explanation of his treatment of them.

(i) Darby spent $200,000 sending its staff on training courses during the year. This has already led to an

improvement in the company’s efficiency and resulted in cost savings. The organiser of the course has stated that the benefits from the training should last for a minimum of four years. The assistant has therefore treated the cost of the training as an intangible asset and charged six months’ amortisation based on the average date during the year on which the training courses were completed. (3 marks)

(ii) During the year the company started research work with a view to the eventual development of a new

processor chip. By 30 September 2009 it had spent $1·6 million on this project. Darby has a past history

of being particularly successful in bringing similar projects to a profitable conclusion. As a consequence the

assistant has treated the expenditure to date on this project as an asset in the statement of financial position.

Darby was also commissioned by a customer to research and, if feasible, produce a computer system to

install in motor vehicles that can automatically stop the vehicle if it is about to be involved in a collision. At

30 September 2009, Darby had spent $2·4 million on this project, but at this date it was uncertain as to

whether the project would be successful. As a consequence the assistant has treated the $2·4 million as an

expense in the income statement. (4 marks)

(iii) Darby signed a contract (for an initial three years) in August 2009 with a company called Media Today to

install a satellite dish and cabling system to a newly built group of residential apartments. Media Today will

provide telephone and television services to the residents of the apartments via the satellite system and pay

Darby $50,000 per annum commencing in December 2009. Work on the installation commenced on

1 September 2009 and the expenditure to 30 September 2009 was $58,000. The installation is expected

to be completed by 31 October 2009. Previous experience with similar contracts indicates that Darby will

make a total profit of $40,000 over the three years on this initial contract. The assistant correctly recorded

the costs to 30 September 2009 of $58,000 as a non-current asset, but then wrote this amount down to

$40,000 (the expected total profit) because he believed the asset to be impaired.

The contract is not a finance lease. Ignore discounting. (4 marks)

Required:

For each of the above items (i) to (iii) comment on the assistant’s treatment of them in the financial

statements for the year ended 30 September 2009 and advise him how they should be treated under

International Financial Reporting Standards.

Note: the mark allocation is shown against each of the three items above.

正确答案：
(a)Therearefourelementstotheassistant’sdefinitionofanon-currentassetandheissubstantiallyincorrectinrespectofallofthem.Thetermnon-currentassetswillnormallyincludeintangibleassetsandcertaininvestments;theuseoftheterm‘physicalasset’wouldbespecifictotangibleassetsonly.Whilstitisusuallythecasethatnon-currentassetsareofrelativelyhighvaluethisisnotadefiningaspect.Awastepaperbinmayexhibitthecharacteristicsofanon-currentasset,butonthegroundsofmaterialityitisunlikelytobetreatedassuch.Furthermorethepastcostofanassetmaybeirrelevant;nomatterhowmuchanassethascost,itistheexpectationoffutureeconomicbenefitsflowingfromaresource(normallyintheform.offuturecashinflows)thatdefinesanassetaccordingtotheIASB’sFrameworkforthepreparationandpresentationoffinancialstatements.Theconceptofownershipisnolongeracriticalaspectofthedefinitionofanasset.Itisprobablythecasethatmostnoncurrentassetsinanentity’sstatementoffinancialpositionareownedbytheentity;however,itistheabilityto‘control’assets(includingpreventingothersfromhavingaccesstothem)thatisnowadefiningfeature.Forexample:thisisanimportantcharacteristicintreatingafinanceleaseasanassetofthelesseeratherthanthelessor.Itisalsotruethatmostnon-currentassetswillbeusedbyanentityformorethanoneyearandapartofthedefinitionofproperty,plantandequipmentinIAS16Property,plantandequipmentreferstoanexpectationofuseinmorethanoneperiod,butthisisnotnecessarilyalwaysthecase.Itmaybethatanon-currentassetisacquiredwhichprovesunsuitablefortheentity’sintendeduseorisdamagedinanaccident.Inthesecircumstancesassetsmaynothavebeenusedforlongerthanayear,butneverthelesstheywerereportedasnon-currentsduringthetimetheywereinuse.Anon-currentassetmaybewithinayearoftheendofitsusefullifebut(unlessasaleagreementhasbeenreachedunderIFRS5Non-currentassetsheldforsaleanddiscontinuedoperations)wouldstillbereportedasanon-currentassetifitwasstillgivingeconomicbenefits.Anotherdefiningaspectofnon-currentassetsistheirintendedusei.e.heldforcontinuinguseintheproduction,supplyofgoodsorservices,forrentaltoothersorforadministrativepurposes.(b)(i)TheexpenditureonthetrainingcoursesmayexhibitthecharacteristicsofanassetinthattheyhaveandwillcontinuetobringfutureeconomicbenefitsbywayofincreasedefficiencyandcostsavingstoDarby.However,theexpenditurecannotberecognisedasanassetonthestatementoffinancialpositionandmustbechargedasanexpenseasthecostisincurred.Themainreasonforthislieswiththeissueof’control’;itisDarby’semployeesthathavethe‘skills’providedbythecourses,buttheemployeescanleavethecompanyandtaketheirskillswiththemor,throughaccidentorinjury,maybedeprivedofthoseskills.AlsothecapitalisationofstafftrainingcostsisspecificallyprohibitedunderInternationalFinancialReportingStandards(specificallyIAS38Intangibleassets).(ii)Thequestionspecificallystatesthatthecostsincurredtodateonthedevelopmentofthenewprocessorchipareresearchcosts.IAS38statesthatresearchcostsmustbeexpensed.Thisismainlybecauseresearchistherelativelyearlystageofanewprojectandanyfuturebenefitsaresofarinthefuturethattheycannotbeconsideredtomeetthedefinitionofanasset(probablefutureeconomicbenefits),despitethegoodrecordofsuccessinthepastwithsimilarprojects.Althoughtheworkontheautomaticvehiclebrakingsystemisstillattheresearchstage,thisisdifferentinnaturefromthepreviousexampleastheworkhasbeencommissionedbyacustomer,Assuch,fromtheperspectiveofDarby,itisworkinprogress(acurrentasset)andshouldnotbewrittenoffasanexpense.Anoteofcautionshouldbeaddedhereinthatthequestionsaysthatthesuccessoftheprojectisuncertainwhichpresumablymeansitmaynotbecompleted.ThisdoesnotmeanthatDarbywillnotreceivepaymentfortheworkithascarriedout,butitshouldbecheckedtothecontracttoensurethattheamountithasspenttodate($2·4million)willberecoverable.Intheeventthatsay,forexample,thecontractstatedthatonly$2millionwouldbeallowedforresearchcosts,thiswouldplacealimitonhowmuchDarbycouldtreatasworkinprogress.Ifthiswerethecasethen,forthisexample,Darbywouldhavetoexpense$400,000andtreatonly$2millionasworkinprogress.(iii)Thequestionsuggeststhecorrecttreatmentforthiskindofcontractistotreatthecostsoftheinstallationasanon-currentassetand(presumably)depreciateitoveritsexpectedlifeof(atleast)threeyearsfromwhenitbecomesavailableforuse.Inthiscasetheassetwillnotcomeintouseuntilthenextfinancialyear/reportingperiodandnodepreciationneedstobeprovidedat30September2009.Thecapitalisedcoststodateof$58,000shouldonlybewrittendownifthereisevidencethattheassethasbecomeimpaired.Impairmentoccurswheretherecoverableamountofanassetislessthanitscarryingamount.Theassistantappearstobelievethattherecoverableamountisthefutureprofit,whereas(inthiscase)itisthefuture(net)cashinflows.Thusanyimpairmenttestat30September2009shouldcomparethecarryingamountof$58,000withtheexpectednetcashflowfromthesystemof$98,000($50,000perannumforthreeyearslessfuturecashoutflowstocompletiontheinstallationof$52,000(seenotebelow)).Asthefuturenetcashflowsareinexcessofthecarryingamount,theassetisnotimpairedanditshouldnotbewrittendownbutshownasanon-currentasset(underconstruction)atcostof$58,000.Note:asthecontractisexpectedtomakeaprofitof$40,000onincomeof$150,000,thetotalcostsmustbe$110,000,withcoststodateat$58,000thisleavescompletioncostsof$52,000.

(b) Provide the directors of Acrux Ltd with a detailed explanation of the maximum rate of tax that will be suffered

on both the distributed and non-distributed profits of the non-UK resident investee companies where:

(1) there is a double tax treaty between the UK and the country in which the individual companies are

resident; and

(2) there is no such double tax treaty.

Note: you are not required to explain the position of the overseas resident branches. (6 marks)

正确答案：
(b) Rate of tax on profits of non-UK resident investee companies
Undistributed profits
The companies will be subject to tax in the countries in which they are resident; this is because of their residency status or
because they have a permanent establishment in that country. Undistributed profits will not be taxed in the UK.
The rate of tax on undistributed profits will therefore be the rate of tax in the country of residency of the respective companies.
Distributed profits with double tax treaty
The dividends received by Acrux Ltd from each of the overseas companies will be grossed up in respect of underlying tax (the
overseas corporation tax paid on the distributed profits) because Acrux Ltd will own at least 10% of the overseas companies.
The gross amount will then be included in Acrux Ltd’s profits chargeable to corporation tax.
The treaty will provide double tax relief in the UK for the overseas tax suffered in respect of each dividend up to a maximum
of the UK tax on the grossed up overseas dividend. As a result of the double tax relief, the overall rate of tax suffered will be
the higher of the UK rate paid by Acrux Ltd and the overseas tax rate borne by the overseas company.
Where the rate of overseas tax in respect of a particular dividend exceeds the rate of corporation tax in the UK, excess foreign
tax will arise. This can be relieved, via onshore pooling, against the UK tax due on those dividends where the rate of tax in
the UK exceeds the rate overseas. This will reduce the overall rate of tax suffered on the total overseas profits of the overseas
companies as a whole.
Distributed profits with no double tax treaty
Where there is no double tax treaty, unilateral double tax relief will be available in the UK. This relief will operate in the same
way as double tax relief under a double tax treaty such that the overall rate of tax on each dividend will be the higher of the
UK rate paid by Acrux Ltd and the overseas rate borne by the overseas company. Relief via onshore pooling will also be
available.

(b) Seymour offers health-related information services through a wholly-owned subsidiary, Aragon Co. Goodwill of

$1·8 million recognised on the purchase of Aragon in October 2004 is not amortised but included at cost in the

consolidated balance sheet. At 30 September 2006 Seymour’s investment in Aragon is shown at cost,

$4·5 million, in its separate financial statements.

Aragon’s draft financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2006 show a loss before taxation of

$0·6 million (2005 – $0·5 million loss) and total assets of $4·9 million (2005 – $5·7 million). The notes to

Aragon’s financial statements disclose that they have been prepared on a going concern basis that assumes that

Seymour will continue to provide financial support. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Seymour Co for the year ended

30 September 2006.

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

正确答案：
(b) Goodwill
(i) Matters
■ Cost of goodwill, $1·8 million, represents 3·4% consolidated total assets and is therefore material.
Tutorial note: Any assessments of materiality of goodwill against amounts in Aragon’s financial statements are
meaningless since goodwill only exists in the consolidated financial statements of Seymour.
■ It is correct that the goodwill is not being amortised (IFRS 3 Business Combinations). However, it should be tested
at least annually for impairment, by management.
■ Aragon has incurred losses amounting to $1·1 million since it was acquired (two years ago). The write-off of this
amount against goodwill in the consolidated financial statements would be material (being 61% cost of goodwill,
8·3% PBT and 2·1% total assets).
■ The cost of the investment ($4·5 million) in Seymour’s separate financial statements will also be material and
should be tested for impairment.
■ The fair value of net assets acquired was only $2·7 million ($4·5 million less $1·8 million). Therefore the fair
value less costs to sell of Aragon on other than a going concern basis will be less than the carrying amount of the
investment (i.e. the investment is impaired by at least the amount of goodwill recognised on acquisition).
■ In assessing recoverable amount, value in use (rather than fair value less costs to sell) is only relevant if the going
concern assumption is appropriate for Aragon.
■ Supporting Aragon financially may result in Seymour being exposed to actual and/or contingent liabilities that
should be provided for/disclosed in Seymour’s financial statements in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions,
Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying values of cost of investment and goodwill arising on acquisition to prior year audit working papers and
financial statements.
■ A copy of Aragon’s draft financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2006 showing loss for year.
■ Management’s impairment test of Seymour’s investment in Aragon and of the goodwill arising on consolidation at
30 September 2006. That is a comparison of the present value of the future cash flows expected to be generated
by Aragon (a cash-generating unit) compared with the cost of the investment (in Seymour’s separate financial
statements).
■ Results of any impairment tests on Aragon’s assets extracted from Aragon’s working paper files.
■ Analytical procedures on future cash flows to confirm their reasonableness (e.g. by comparison with cash flows for
the last two years).
■ Bank report for audit purposes for any guarantees supporting Aragon’s loan facilities.
■ A copy of Seymour’s ‘comfort letter’ confirming continuing financial support of Aragon for the foreseeable future.

(c) In April 2006, Keffler was banned by the local government from emptying waste water into a river because the

water did not meet minimum standards of cleanliness. Keffler has made a provision of $0·9 million for the

technological upgrading of its water purifying process and included $45,000 for the penalties imposed in ‘other

provisions’. (5 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Keffler Co for the year ended

31 March 2006.

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

正确答案：
(c) Ban on emptying waste water
(i) Matter
■ $0·9m provision for upgrading the process represents 45% PBT and is very material. This provision is also
material to the balance sheet (2·7% of total assets).
■ The provision for penalties is immaterial (2·2% PBT and 0·1% total assets).
■ The ban is an adjusting post balance sheet event in respect of the penalties (IAS 10). It provides evidence that at
the balance sheet date Keffler was in contravention of local government standards. Therefore it is correct (in
accordance with IAS 37) that a provision has been made for the penalties. As the matter is not material inclusion
in ‘other provisions’ is appropriate.
■ However, even if Keffler has a legal obligation to meet minimum standards, there is no obligation for upgrading the
purifying process at 31 March 2006 and the $0·9m provision should be written back.
■ If the provision for upgrading is not written back the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ (disagreement).
■ Keffler does not even have a contingent liability for upgrading the process because there is no present obligation to
do so. The obligation is to stop emptying unclean water into the river. Nor is there a possible obligation whose
existence will be confirmed by an uncertain future event not wholly within Keffler’s control.
Tutorial note: Consider that Keffler has alternatives wholly within its control. For example, it could ignore the ban
and incur fines, or relocate/close this particular plant/operation or perhaps dispose of the water by alternative
means.
■ The need for a technological upgrade may be an indicator of impairment. Management should have carried out
an impairment test on the carrying value of the water purifying process and recognised any impairment loss in the
profit for the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Management’s intention to upgrade the process is more appropriate to an environmental responsibility report (if
any).
■ Whether there is any other information in documents containing financial statements.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Penalty notices of fines received to confirm amounts and period/dates covered.
■ After-date payment of fines agreed to the cash book.
■ A copy of the ban and any supporting report on the local government’s findings.
■ Minutes of board meetings at which the ban was discussed confirming management’s intentions (e.g. to upgrade
the process).
Tutorial note: This may be disclosed in the directors’ report and/or as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event.
■ Any tenders received/costings for upgrading.
Tutorial note: This will be relevant if, for example, capital commitment authorised (by the board) but not
contracted for at the year end are disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.
■ Physical inspection of the emptying point at the river to confirm that Keffler is not still emptying waste water into
it (unless the upgrading has taken place).
Tutorial note: Thereby incurring further penalties.

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