ACCA考试成绩有效期到底是多久

正确答案：
(c) Claims for capital losses
Where the value of shares (a chargeable asset) has become negligible (defined as <5% of the original cost), a claim can be
made to treat the asset as though it was sold and then immediately reacquired for its current market value. This is known as
a negligible value claim.
The sale and reacquisition is treated as taking place at the time that the claim is made or at a specified time (up to 2 years
before the start of the tax year in which the claim was made) if the asset was of negligible value at that time.
As the loss is on unquoted shares, a further relief (s.574 ICTA 1988) allows the loss to be relieved against the total income
of the taxpayer for the year in which the loss arose, and/or against the total income of the previous year.
Losses are first relieved against current year income, with any excess being available for offset against the prior year’s income.
Bob can therefore make a negligible value claim as at 1 December 2004. This will give rise to a loss of ￡14,500
(￡500 – ￡15,000) which will be deemed to arise in the year 2004/05. By doing so, his taxable income for that year will be
reduced from ￡36,875 to ￡22,375.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Cost of investment on acquisition of Dylan Co
Matters to consider
According to the schedule provided by the client, the cost of investment comprises three elements. One matter to
consider is whether the cost of investment is complete.
It appears that no legal or professional fees have been included in the cost of investment (unless included within the
heading ‘cash consideration’). Directly attributable costs should be included per IFRS 3 Business Combinations, and
there is a risk that these costs may be expensed in error, leading to understatement of the investment.
The cash consideration of $2·5 million is the least problematical component. The only matter to consider is whether the
cash has actually been paid. Given that Dylan Co was acquired in the last month of the financial year it is possible that
the amount had not been paid before the year end, in which case the amount should be recognised as a current liability
on the statement of financial position (balance sheet). However, this seems unlikely given that normally control of an
acquired company only passes to the acquirer on cash payment.
IFRS 3 states that the cost of investment should be recognised at fair value, which means that deferred consideration
should be discounted to present value at the date of acquisition. If the consideration payable on 31 January 2009 has
not been discounted, the cost of investment, and the corresponding liability, will be overstated. It is possible that the
impact of discounting the $1·5 million payable one year after acquisition would be immaterial to the financial
statements, in which case it would be acceptable to leave the consideration at face value within the cost of investment.
Contingent consideration should be accrued if it is probable to be paid. Here the amount is payable if revenue growth
targets are achieved over the next four years. The auditor must therefore assess the probability of the targets being
achieved, using forecasts and projections of Maxwell Co’s revenue. Such information is inherently subjective, and could
have been manipulated, if prepared by the vendor of Maxwell Co, in order to secure the deal and maximise
consideration. Here it will be crucial to be sceptical when reviewing the forecasts, and the assumptions underlying the
data. The management of Rosie Co should have reached their own opinion on the probability of paying the contingent
consideration, but they may have relied heavily on information provided at the time of the acquisition.
Audit evidence
– Agreement of the monetary value and payment dates of the consideration per the client schedule to legal
documentation signed by vendor and acquirer.
– Agreement of $2·5 million paid to Rosie Co’s bank statement and cash book prior to year end. If payment occurs
after year end confirm that a current liability is recognised on the individual company and consolidated statement
of financial position (balance sheet).
– Board minutes approving the payment.
– Recomputation of discounting calculations applied to deferred and contingent consideration.
– Agreement that the discount rate used is pre-tax, and reflects current market assessment of the time value of money
(e.g. by comparison to Rosie Co’s weighted average cost of capital).
– Revenue and profit projections for the period until January 2012, checked for arithmetic accuracy.
– A review of assumptions used in the projections, and agreement that the assumptions are comparable with the
auditor’s understanding of Dylan Co’s business.
Tutorial note: As the scenario states that Chien & Co has audited Dylan Co for several years, it is reasonable to rely on
their cumulative knowledge and understanding of the business in auditing the revenue projections.

正确答案：
(b) Report to the management of Razor Ltd
To           The management of Razor Ltd
From       Tax advisers
Date         6 June 2007
Subject    The proposed activities of Cutlass Inc
(i) Rate of tax on profits of Cutlass Inc
When considering the manner in which the profits of Cutlass Inc will be taxed it must be recognised that the system of
corporation tax in Sharpenia is the same as that in the UK.
The profits of Cutlass Inc will be subject to corporation tax in the country in which it is resident or where it has a
permanent establishment. It is desirable for the profits of Cutlass Inc to be taxed in the UK rather than in Sharpenia as
the rate of corporation tax in the UK on annual profits of ￡120,000 will be 19% whereas in Sharpenia the rate of tax
would be 38%.
Residency of Cutlass Inc
Cutlass Inc will be resident in Sharpenia, because it is incorporated there. However, it will also be resident in the UK if
it is centrally managed and controlled from the UK. For this to be the case, Amy and Ben should hold the company’s
board meetings in the UK.
Under the double tax treaty between the UK and Sharpenia, a company resident in both countries is treated as being
resident in the country where it is effectively managed and controlled. For Cutlass Inc to be treated as UK resident under
the treaty, Amy and Ben would need to ensure that all key management and commercial decisions are made in the UK
and not in Sharpenia.
Permanent establishment
A permanent establishment is a fixed place of business, including an office, factory or workshop, through which the
business of an enterprise is carried on. A permanent establishment will also exist in a country if contracts in the
company’s name are habitually concluded there.
The trading profits of Cutlass Inc will be taxable in Sharpenia if they are derived from a permanent establishment in
Sharpenia even if it can be established that Cutlass Inc is UK resident under the double tax treaty.
Double taxation
If Cutlass Inc is UK resident but has a permanent establishment in Sharpenia, its trading profits will be subject to
corporation tax in both the UK and Sharpenia with double tax relief available in the UK. The double tax relief will be the
lower of the UK tax and the Sharpenian tax on the trading profits. Accordingly, as the rate of tax is higher in Sharpenia
than it is in the UK, there will be no UK tax to pay on the company’s trading profits and the rate of tax on the profits
would be the rate in Sharpenia, i.e. 38%.
If Cutlass Inc is UK resident and does not have a permanent establishment in Sharpenia, its profits will be taxable in
the UK at the rate of 19% and not in Sharpenia.

正确答案：D
20% x 120,000