备考资料：2020年ACCA考试FR财务报告知识点(8)

正确答案：
(e) In order to enhance profitability management might take the following actions:
(i) Increase the maximum capacity of the circus.
(ii) Undertake a detailed review of operating costs which are budgeted at ￡239,200,000. Such a review might identify nonvalue
added costs which may be eliminated thereby increasing profitability.
(iii) Enter into a strategic arrangement with large hotels and travel agencies to offer travel and accommodation inclusive
arrangements for visitors to Cinola Island. This might help to increase the number of visitors to the zoo thereby increasing
profits.
(iv) Change the price structure and entitlement of tickets so that purchasers might visit Cinola Island on two separate days
in order to attend the zoo and circus. Additional revenues would arise as a consequence of the increased number of
visitors to the zoo, thereby increasing profitability.
(v) Hold prize draws for free tickets to the zoo for families on an ‘all-inclusive basis’, including restaurants, photographs,
souvenirs etc.
N.B. Only four initiatives were required to be discussed.

正确答案：
(b) Tiltman Co
Tiltman’s total assets at 31 March 2006 represent 29% (16·1/55·2 × 100) of Johnston’s total assets. The subsidiary is
therefore material to Johnston’s consolidated financial statements.
Tutorial note: Tiltman’s profit for the year is not relevant as the acquisition took place just before the year end and will
therefore have no impact on the consolidated income statement. Calculations of the effect on consolidated profit before
taxation are therefore inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(i) Inventory overvaluation
This should have been written off to the income statement in the year to 31 March 2005 and not spread over three
years (contrary to IAS 2 ‘Inventories’).
At 31 March 2006 inventory is overvalued by $0·9m. This represents all Tiltmans’s profit for the year and 5·6% of
total assets and is material. At 31 March 2005 inventory was materially overvalued by $1·8m ($1·7m reported profit
should have been a $0·1m loss).
Tutorial note: 1/3 of the overvaluation was written off in the prior period (i.e. year to 31 March 2005) instead of $2·7m.
That the prior period’s auditor’s report was unmodified means that the previous auditor concurred with an incorrect
accounting treatment (or otherwise gave an inappropriate audit opinion).
As the matter is material a prior period adjustment is required (IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’). $1·8m should be written off against opening reserves (i.e. restated as at 1 April 2005).
(ii) Restructuring provision
$2·3m expense has been charged to Tiltman’s profit and loss in arriving at a draft profit of $0·7m. This is very material.
(The provision represents 14·3% of Tiltman’s total assets and is material to the balance sheet date also.)
The provision for redundancies and onerous contracts should not have been made for the year ended 31 March 2006
unless there was a constructive obligation at the balance sheet date (IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’). So, unless the main features of the restructuring plan had been announced to those affected (i.e.
redundancy notifications issued to employees), the provision should be reversed. However, it should then be disclosed
as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’).
Given the short time (less than one month) between acquisition and the balance sheet it is very possible that a
constructive obligation does not arise at the balance sheet date. The relocation in May was only part of a restructuring
(and could be the first evidence that Johnston’s management has started to implement a restructuring plan).
There is a risk that goodwill on consolidation of Tiltman may be overstated in Johnston’s consolidated financial
statements. To avoid the $2·3 expense having a significant effect on post-acquisition profit (which may be negligible
due to the short time between acquisition and year end), Johnston may have recognised it as a liability in the
determination of goodwill on acquisition.
However, the execution of Tiltman’s restructuring plan, though made for the year ended 31 March 2006, was conditional
upon its acquisition by Johnston. It does not therefore represent, immediately before the business combination, a
present obligation of Johnston. Nor is it a contingent liability of Johnston immediately before the combination. Therefore
Johnston cannot recognise a liability for Tiltman’s restructuring plans as part of allocating the cost of the combination
(IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’).
Tiltman’s auditor’s report
The following adjustments are required to the financial statements:
■ restructuring provision, $2·3m, eliminated;
■ adequate disclosure of relocation as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event;
■ current period inventory written down by $0·9m;
■ prior period inventory (and reserves) written down by $1·8m.
Profit for the year to 31 March 2006 should be $3·9m ($0·7 + $0·9 + $2·3).
If all these adjustments are made the auditor’s report should be unmodified. Otherwise, the auditor’s report should be
qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of disagreement. If none of the adjustments are made, the qualification should still be
‘except for’ as the matters are not pervasive.
Johnston’s auditor’s report
If Tiltman’s auditor’s report is unmodified (because the required adjustments are made) the auditor’s report of Johnston
should be similarly unmodified. As Tiltman is wholly-owned by Johnston there should be no problem getting the
adjustments made.
If no adjustments were made in Tiltman’s financial statements, adjustments could be made on consolidation, if
necessary, to avoid modification of the auditor’s report on Johnston’s financial statements.
The effect of these adjustments on Tiltman’s net assets is an increase of $1·4m. Goodwill arising on consolidation (if
any) would be reduced by $1·4m. The reduction in consolidated total assets required ($0·9m + $1·4m) is therefore
the same as the reduction in consolidated total liabilities (i.e. $2·3m). $2·3m is material (4·2% consolidated total
assets). If Tiltman’s financial statements are not adjusted and no adjustments are made on consolidation, the
consolidated financial position (balance sheet) should be qualified ‘except for’. The results of operations (i.e. profit for
the period) should be unqualified (if permitted in the jurisdiction in which Johnston reports).
Adjustment in respect of the inventory valuation may not be required as Johnston should have consolidated inventory
at fair value on acquisition. In this case, consolidated total liabilities should be reduced by $2·3m and goodwill arising
on consolidation (if any) reduced by $2·3m.
Tutorial note: The effect of any possible goodwill impairment has been ignored as the subsidiary has only just been
acquired and the balance sheet date is very close to the date of acquisition.

正确答案：
(iv) Problems with delegation can be overcome by careful selection and training, an open communication system, the establishment of an appropriate control system and a system that rewards effective delegation.

正确答案：
(ii) Several significant financial statement risks are indicated by the press cutting.
Overstatement of property, plant and equipment
Medix Co has constructed a research laboratory which is likely to be impaired at the year end. The local authority has
the power to shut down the facility, and it is clear from the press cutting that this is likely to happen before the year end.
Following IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, the premises should be written down to recoverable amount, and the
impairment loss recognised as an expense. The directors should carry out an impairment review before the year end. If
the premises cannot be used as intended then the recoverable amount (measured using the higher of value in use and
fair value less selling cost) is likely to be less than current carrying value. In this case, assuming the local authority is
successful in shutting down the research laboratory, the recoverable amount is likely to be nil, as the premises have no
value in use, as it will never be used commercially, and has no market value as it is likely to be demolished.
In addition, any tangible assets such as laboratory equipment located at the premises should be tested for impairment
as if the company cannot use the premises then the assets contained within it are likely to have a lower recoverable
amount than carrying value.
Contingency – fines or penalties imposed by local authority
The press cutting indicates that Medix Co has been sued before, and that the local authority may again take legal action
against the company. IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets states that a provision should be
recognised if the company has a probable obligation at the year end which can be measured reliably. If payment is
deemed only possible at the year end, then disclosure of the contingent liability should be made in a note to the financial
statements.
If the local authority commences legal proceedings against Medix Co before the year end of 30 June 2008, then
management should assess the probability of payment. The financial statement risk is not recognising a provision (and
associated expense within the income statement), or not disclosing a contingency.
Demolition costs
The local authority may require Medix Co to demolish the premises. If this demand is made before the year end, Medix
Co should recognise a provision for demolition costs as an unavoidable legal obligation would have been created. The
financial statement risk is that in this situation, Medix Co fails to recognise a provision and associated expense within
the income statement.
Going concern
The above issues could indicate that the company may not continue in operational existence. The potential lack of
disclosure of these issues represents a financial statement risk.