ACCA考试F7每日一练(2019-03-14)

正确答案：

(b) [Ben’s address]                                                                                                     [Firm’s address]
Dear Ben                                                                                                                              [Date]
A company purchase of own shares can be subject to capital gains treatment if certain conditions are satisfied. However, one
of these conditions is that the shares in question must have been held for a minimum period of five years. As at 1 May 2010,
your shares in Flower Limited have only been held for four years and ten months. As a result, the capital gains treatment will
not apply.
In the absence of capital gains treatment, the position on a company repurchase of its own shares is that the payment will
be treated as an income distribution (i.e. a dividend) in the hands of the recipient. The distribution element is calculated as
the proceeds received for the shares less the price paid for them. On the basis that the purchase price is ￡500,000, then the
element of distribution will be ￡499,500 (500,000 – 500). This would be taxed as follows:

正确答案：
(b) Property is sometimes sold with a degree of continuing involvement by the seller so that the risks and rewards of ownership
have not been transferred. The nature and extent of the buyer’s involvement will determine how the transaction is accounted
for. The substance of the transaction is determined by looking at the transaction as a whole and IAS18 ‘Revenue’ requires
this by stating that where two or more transactions are linked, they should be treated as a single transaction in order to
understand the commercial effect (IAS18 paragraph 13). In the case of the sale of the hotel, theme park and casino, Norman
should not recognise a sale as the company continues to enjoy substantially all of the risks and rewards of the businesses,
and still operates and manages them. Additionally the residual interest in the business reverts back to Norman. Also Norman
has guaranteed the income level for the purchaser as the minimum payment to Conquest will be $15 million a year. The
transaction is in substance a financing arrangement and the proceeds should be treated as a loan and the payment of profits
as interest.
The principles of IAS18 and IFRIC13 ‘Customer Loyalty Programmes’ require that revenue in respect of each separate
component of a transaction is measured at its fair value. Where vouchers are issued as part of a sales transaction and are
redeemable against future purchases, revenue should be reported at the amount of the consideration received/receivable less
the voucher’s fair value. In substance, the customer is purchasing both goods or services and a voucher. The fair value of the
voucher is determined by reference to the value to the holder and not the cost to the issuer. Factors to be taken into account
when estimating the fair value, would be the discount the customer obtains, the percentage of vouchers that would be
redeemed, and the time value of money. As only one in five vouchers are redeemed, then effectively the hotel has sold goods
worth ($300 + $4) million, i.e. $304 million for a consideration of $300 million. Thus allocating the discount between the
two elements would mean that (300 ÷ 304 x $300m) i.e. $296·1 million will be allocated to the room sales and the balance
of $3·9 million to the vouchers. The deferred portion of the proceeds is only recognised when the obligations are fulfilled.
The recognition of government grants is covered by IAS20 ‘Accounting for government grants and disclosure of government
assistance’. The accruals concept is used by the standard to match the grant received with the related costs. The relationship
between the grant and the related expenditure is the key to establishing the accounting treatment. Grants should not be
recognised until there is reasonable assurance that the company can comply with the conditions relating to their receipt and
the grant will be received. Provision should be made if it appears that the grant may have to be repaid.
There may be difficulties of matching costs and revenues when the terms of the grant do not specify precisely the expense
towards which the grant contributes. In this case the grant appears to relate to both the building of hotels and the creation of
employment. However, if the grant was related to revenue expenditure, then the terms would have been related to payroll or
a fixed amount per job created. Hence it would appear that the grant is capital based and should be matched against the
depreciation of the hotels by using a deferred income approach or deducting the grant from the carrying value of the asset
(IAS20). Additionally the grant is only to be repaid if the cost of the hotel is less than $500 million which itself would seem
to indicate that the grant is capital based. If the company feels that the cost will not reach $500 million, a provision should
be made for the estimated liability if the grant has been recognised.

正确答案：
(b) Illustration of use of analytical procedures as audit evidence
Tutorial note: Note that ‘as audit evidence’ requires consideration of substantive analytical procedures rather that the
identification of risks (relevant to part (a)).
Revenue
Analytical procedures may be used in testing revenue for completeness of recording (‘understatement’). The average selling
price of a vehicle in 2005 was $68,830 ($526·0 million ÷ 7,642 vehicles). Applying this to the number of vehicles sold
in 2006, might be projected to generate $698·8 million ($68,830 × 10,153) revenue from the sale of vehicles. The draft
financial statements therefore show a potential shortfall of $110·8 million ($(698·8 – 588·0) million) that is, 15·6%.
This should be investigated and substantiated through more detailed analytical procedures. For example, the number of
vehicles sold should be analysed into models and multiplied by the list price of each for a more accurate estimate of potential
revenue. The impact of discounts and other incentives (e.g. 0% finance) on the list prices should then be allowed for. If
recorded revenue for 2006 (as per draft income statement adjusted for cutoff and consignment inventories) is materially lower
than that calculated, detailed substantive procedures may be required in order to show that there is no material error.
‘Proof in total’/reasonableness tests
The material correctness, or otherwise, of income statement items (in particular) may be assessed through appropriate ‘proof
in total’ calculations (or ‘reasonableness’ tests). For example:
■ Employee benefits costs: the average number of employees by category (waged/salaried/apprenticed) × the average pay
rate for each might prove that in total $91·0 million (as adjusted to actual at 31 December 2006) is not materially
misstated. The average number of employees needs to be checked substantively (e.g. recalculated based on the number
of employees on each payroll) and the average pay rates (e.g. to rates agreed with employee representatives).
Tutorial note: An alternative reasonableness might be to take last year’s actual adjusted for 2006 numbers of
employees grossed-up for any pay increases during the year (pro-rated as necessary).
■ Depreciation: the cost (or net book value) of each category of asset × by the relevant straight-line (or reducing balance)
depreciation rate. If a ‘ballpark’ calculation for the year is materially different to the annual charge a more detailed
calculation can be made using monthly depreciation calculations. The cost (or net book value) on which depreciation
is calculated should be substantively tested, for example by agreeing brought forward balances to prior year working
papers and additions to purchase invoices (costings in respect of assets under construction).
Tutorial note: Alternatively, last year’s depreciation charge may be reconciled to this year’s by considering depreciation
rates applied to brought forward balances with adjustments for additions/disposals.
■ Interest income: an average interest rate for the year can be applied to the monthly balance invested (e.g. in deposit
accounts) and compared with the amount recognised for the year to 31 December 2006 (as adjusted for any accrued
interest per the bank letter for audit purposes). The monthly balances (or averages) on which the calculation is
performed should be substantiated to bank deposit statements.
■ Interest expense: if the cash balances do not go into overdraft then this may be similar expenses (e.g. prompt payment
discounts to customers). If this is to particular dealers then a proof in total might be to apply the discount rate to the
amounts invoiced to the dealer during the period.
Immaterial items
For immaterial items analytical procedures alone may provide sufficient audit evidence that amounts in the financial
statements are not materially misstated so that detailed substantive procedures are not required. For example, a comparison
of administration and distribution, maintenance and insurance costs for 2006 compared with 2005 may be sufficient to show
that material error is highly unlikely. If necessary, further reasonableness tests could be performed. For example, considering
insurance costs to value of assets insured or maintenance costs to costs of assets maintained.
Ratio analysis
Ratio analysis can provide substantive evidence that income statement and balance sheet items are not materially misstated
by considering their inter-relationships. For example:
■ Asset turnover: Based on the draft financial statements property, plant and equipment has turned over 5·2 times
($645·5/124·5) compared with 5·9 times in 2005. This again highlights that income may be overstated, or assets
overstated (e.g. if depreciation is understated).
■ Inventory turnover: Using cost of materials adjusted for changes in inventories this has remained stable at 10·9 times.
Tutorial note: This is to be expected as in (a) the cost in the income statement has increased by 9% and the value of
inventories by 8·5%.
Inventories represent the smallest asset value on the balance sheet at 31 December 2006 (7·8% of total assets).
Therefore substantive procedures may be limited to agreeing physical count of material items (vehicles) and agreeing
cutoff.
■ Average collection period: This has increased to 41 days (73·1/645·5 × 365) from 30 days. Further substantive analysis
is required, for example, separating out non-current amounts (for sales on 0% finance terms). Substantive procedures
may be limited to confirmation of amounts due from dealers (and/or receipt of after-date cash) and agreeing cutoff of
goods on consignment.
■ Payment periods: This has remained constant at 37 days (2005 – 38 days). Detailed substantive procedures may be
restricted to reconciling only major suppliers’ statements and agreeing the cutoff on parts purchased from them.