2019年ACCA考试《高级审计与认证（专业阶段）》每日一练(2019-03-16)

正确答案：
(i)IAS18Revenuerequiresthatwheresalesrevenueincludesanamountforaftersalesservicingandsupportcoststhenaproportionoftherevenueshouldbedeferred.Theamountdeferredshouldcoverthecostandareasonableprofit(inthiscaseagrossprofitof40%)ontheservices.Astheservicingandsupportisforthreeyearsandthedateofthesalewas1October2008,revenuerelatingtotwoyears’servicingandsupportprovisionmustbedeferred:($1·2millionx2/0·6)=$4million.Thisisshownas$2millioninbothcurrentandnon-currentliabilities.

正确答案：
Part (b):
Oliver may feel he has a grievance as a consequence of treatment which he perceives as unfair. Proper disciplinary procedures are
essential for harmonious relationships between management and all staff. Oliver may feel that he has been singled out and that
David Morgan does not understand the need for equity in invoking disciplinary procedures.
David Morgan did not follow this procedure. No informal talk took place which might have resolved the problem, preferring to
deliver an oral warning, then moving to a written warning and dismissal. Oliver was not represented and his dismissal is likely to
lead to dissatisfaction with Oliver’s peers.
Oliver must now invoke the correct grievance procedure.

正确答案：
(b) Matters to be considered (before accepting the engagement)
Tutorial note: Although candidates may approach this part from a rote-learned list of ‘matters to consider’ it is important
that answer points be tailored, in so far as the information given in the scenario permits, to the specifics of Plaza and MCM.
It is critical that answer points should not contradict the scenario (e.g. assuming that it is Plaza’s auditor who has been
asked to undertake the assignment).
■ Information about Duncan Seymour – What is the relationship of the chief finance officer to Plaza (e.g. is he on the
management board)? By what authority is he approaching Andando to undertake this assignment?
■ The purpose of the assignment must be clarified. Duncan’s approach to Andando is ‘to advise on a bid’. However,
Andando cannot make executive decisions for a client but only provide the facts of material interest. Plaza’s
management must decide whether or not to bid and, if so, how much to bid.
■ The scope of the due diligence review. It seems likely that Plaza will be interested in acquiring all of MCM’s business
as its areas of operation coincide with Plaza’s. However it must be confirmed that Plaza is not merely interested in
acquiring only the National or International business of MCM.
■ Andando’s competence and experience – Andando should not accept the engagement unless the firm has experience in
undertaking due diligence assignments. Even then, the firm must have sufficient knowledge of the territories in which
the businesses operate to evaluate whether all facts of material interest to Plaza have been identified.
Tutorial note: Candidates should be querying their competence and experience in the fields of retailing and training
as though they were dealing with highly regulated or specialist industries such as banking or insurance.
■ Whether Andando has sufficient resources (e.g. representative/associated offices), if any, in Europe and Asia to
investigate MCM’s International business.
■ Any factors which might impair Andando’s objectivity in reporting to Plaza the facts uncovered by the due diligence
review. For example, if Duncan is closely connected with a partner in Andando or if Andando is the auditor of Frontiers.
Tutorial note: Candidates will not be awarded marks for going into ‘autopilot’ on independence issues. For example,
this is a one-off assignment so size of fee is not relevant. Andando holding shares in MCM is not possible (since whollyowned).
■ Plaza’s rationale for wishing to acquire MCM. Presumably it is significant that MCM operates in the same territories as
Plaza. Plaza may be wanting to provide extensive training programs in management, communications and marketing
to its workforce.
■ The relationship, if any, between Plaza and MCM in any of the territories. Plaza may be a major client of MCM. That
is, Plaza is currently out-sourcing training to MCM. Acquiring MCM would bring training in-house.
Tutorial note: Ascertaining what a purchaser hopes to gain from an acquisition before the assignment is accepted is
important. The facts to be uncovered for a merger from which synergy is expected will be different from those relevant
to acquiring an investment opportunity.
■ Time available – Andando must have sufficient time to find all facts that would be of material interest to Plaza before
disclosing their findings.
■ The acceptability of any limitations – whether there will be restrictions on Andando’s access to information held by MCM
(e.g. if there will not be access to board minutes) and personnel.
■ The degree of secrecy required – this may go beyond the normal duties of confidentiality not to disclose information to
outsiders (e.g. if unannounced staff redundancies could arise).
■ Why Plaza’s current auditors have not been asked to conduct the due diligence review – especially as they are
responsible for (and therefore capable of undertaking) the group audit covering the relevant countries.
■ Andando should be allowed to communicate with Plaza’s current auditor:
– to inform. them of the nature of the work they have been asked to undertake; and
– to enquire if there is any reason why they should not accept this assignment.
■ In taking on Plaza as a new client Andando may have a later opportunity to offer external audit and other services to
Plaza (e.g. internal audit).

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.