大家好，我是建筑环境与设备工程专业的，现在准备...

正确答案：
(c) (i) The proposed transaction broadly falls under the ‘paper for paper’ rules. Where this is the case, chargeable gains do not
arise. Instead, the new holding stands in the shoes (and inherits the base cost) of the original holding.
The company issuing the new shares must:
(i) end up with more than 25% of the ordinary share capital or a majority of the voting power of the old company,
OR
(ii) make a general offer to shareholders in the old company with a condition which would give the acquiring company
control of the company if accepted.
The exchange must be for bona fide commercial reasons and not have as its main purpose (or one of its main purposes)
the avoidance of capital gains tax or corporation tax.
The issue of shares by Bold plc satisfies these conditions, thus Damian, as a shareholder of Linden Limited, will not be
taxed on the exchange of shares.

正确答案：
(b) An illustration of each of the problems using the data from the Battamould division/TRG scenario is as follows:
Meeting only the lowest targets
– In the scenario, the budgeted variable cost of $200 per tonne has been agreed. There is no specific incentive for the
Bettamould division to try to achieve a better level of performance.
Using more resources than necessary
– In the scenario, the current budget allows for 5% machine idle time. There is evidence that a move to outsourcing
machine maintenance from a specialist company could help reduce idle time levels and permit annual output in excess
of 100,000 tonnes.
Making the bonus – whatever it takes
– At present, the only sanction/incentive is to achieve 100,000 tonnes of output. There is no mention of any sanction for
example, if processing losses (and hence costs) rise to 20% of material inputs.
Competing against other divisions, business units and departments
– At present, the Bettamould division sources its materials from chosen suppliers who have been used for some years.
There is evidence that materials of equal specification could be sourced for 40% of the annual requirement from another
TRG division which has spare capacity. Why has this not been investigated?
Ensuring that what is in the budget is spent
– In the Bettamould scenario, there is a fixed cost budget allowance of $50,000,000. We are told in the question that
salaries of all employees and management are paid on a fixed salary basis. Bettamould’s management will not want a
reduction in the fixed budget allowance, since this could lead to the need to reduce the number of employees, which
they may see as having a detrimental effect on the ability of the division to meet its annual budget output target of
100,000 tonnes.
Providing inaccurate forecasts
– In the scenario there may have been deliberate efforts to increase the agreed budget level of aspects of measures and
costs. For example, by putting forward the argument that the budget requirement of 15% processing losses is acceptable
because of the likelihood that ageing machinery will be less effective in the coming budget period.
Meeting the target but not beating it
– In the scenario the bonus of 5% of salary is payable as long as the 100,000 tonnes of output is achieved. This does
not require that actual results will show any other aspects of the budget being improved upon. For example there is no
need to consider a reduction in the current level of quality checks (25% of daily throughput) to the 10% level that current
evidence suggests is achieved by competitor companies. The current budget agreement allows the Bettamould division
to transfer its output to market based profit centres at $200 + $500 = $700 per tonne. There is no specified penalty
if costs exceed this target level.
Avoiding risks
– Bettamould has not yet incorporated the changes listed in note 4 in the question. For example why has the sourcing of
40% of required materials from another TRC division not been quantified and evaluated. It is possible that the division
with spare capacity could supply the material at cost (possibly based on marginal cost) which would be less than
currently paid to a supplier external to TRC. It may be that Bettamould have not pursued this possibility because of risk
factors relating to the quality of the material transferred or its continued availability where the supplying division had an
upturn in the level of more profitable external business.

正确答案：

 

 

正确答案：
(b) IAS16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’ permits assets to be revalued on a class by class basis. The different characteristics
of the buildings allow them to be classified separately. Different measurement models can, therefore, be used for the office
buildings and the film studios. However, IAS8 ‘Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and errors’ says that
once an entity has decided on its accounting policies, it should apply them consistently from period to period and across all
relevant transactions. An entity can change its accounting policies but only in specific circumstances. These circumstances
are:
(a) where there is a new accounting standard or interpretation or changes to an accounting standard
(b) where the change results in the financial statements providing reliable and more relevant information about the effects
of transactions, other events or conditions on the entity’s financial position, financial performance, or cash flows
Voluntary changes in accounting policies are quite uncommon but may occur when an accounting policy is no longer
appropriate. Router will have to ensure that the change in accounting policy meets the criteria in IAS8. Additionally,
depreciated historical cost will have to be calculated for the film studios at the commencement of the period and the opening
balance on the revaluation reserve and any other affected component of equity adjusted. The comparative amounts for each
prior period should be presented as if the new accounting policy had always been applied. There are limits on retrospective
application on the grounds of impracticability.
It is surprising that the lease of the land is considered to be a finance lease under IAS17 ‘Leases’. Land is considered to have
an indefinite life and should, therefore normally be classified as an operating lease unless ownership passes to the lessee
during the lease term. The lease of the land should be separated out from the lease and treated individually. The value of the
land so determined would be taken off the balance sheet in terms of the liability and asset and the lease payments treated
as rentals in the income statement. A prior period adjustment should also be made. The buildings would continue to be
treated as property, plant and equipment (PPE) and the carrying amount not adjusted. However, the remaining useful life of
the building should be revised to reflect the shorter lease term. This will result in the carrying amount being depreciated over
the shorter period. This change to the depreciation policy is applied prospectively not retrospectively.
The lease liability must be assessed for derecognition under IAS39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’,
because of the revision of the lease terms, in order to determine whether the new terms are substantially different from the
old. The purpose of this is to determine whether the change in terms is a modification or an extinguishment. The change
seems to constitute a ‘modification’ because there is little change to the terms. The lease liability is, therefore, amended by
deducting the one off payment ($10 million) from the carrying amount (after adjustment for the lease of land) together with
any transaction costs. The lease liability is then remeasured to the present value of the revised future cash flows, discounted
using the original effective interest rate. Any adjustment made in remeasuring the lease liability will be taken to the income
statement.