ACCA SBL 有什么好的考试技巧呢？

正确答案：
(ii) Shares held in Date Inc and the related dividend income
Degrouping charge
There will be a degrouping charge in Nikau Ltd in the year ending 31 March 2008 in respect of the shares in Date Inc.
This is because Nikau Ltd has left the Facet Group within six years of the no gain, no loss transfer of the shares whilst
still owning them.
Nikau Ltd is treated as if it has sold the shares in Date Inc for their market value as at the time of the no gain, no loss
transfer. This will give rise to a gain, ignoring indexation allowance, of ￡201,000 (￡338,000 – ￡137,000).
This gain will give rise to additional corporation tax of ￡60,300 (￡201,000 x 30%).
Controlled foreign company
Date Inc is a controlled foreign company. The profits of such a company are normally attributed to its UK resident
shareholders such that they are subject to UK corporation tax.
However, none of the profits of Date Inc will be attributed to Nikau Ltd because Date Inc distributes more than 90%
(￡115,000/￡120,000 = 95·8%) of its chargeable profits to its shareholders.
Dividend income
Nikau Ltd is a UK resident company and is therefore subject to corporation tax on its worldwide income.
The dividend income will be grossed up in respect of the withholding tax giving rise to taxable income of ￡39,792
(￡38,200 x 100/96). There is no underlying tax as there are no taxes on income or capital profits in Palladia.
The corporation tax of ￡11,938 (￡39,792 x 30%) will be reduced by unilateral double tax relief equal to the withholding
tax suffered of ￡1,592 (￡39,792 x 4%) resulting in corporation tax due of ￡10,346 (￡11,938 – ￡1,592).

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).

正确答案：
(b) (i) The share options
There are no income tax implications on the grant of the share options.
In the tax year in which Benny exercises the options and acquires the shares, the excess of the market value of the
shares over the price paid, i.e. ￡11,500 ((￡3·35 – ￡2·20) x 10,000) will be subject to income tax.
Benny’s financial exposure is caused by the rule within the share option scheme obliging him to hold the shares for a
year before he can sell them. If the company’s expansion into Eastern Europe fails, such that its share price
subsequently falls to less than ￡2·20 before Benny has the chance to sell the shares, Benny’s financial position may be
summarised as follows:
– Benny will have paid ￡22,000 (￡2·20 x 10,000) for shares which are now worth less than that.
– He will also have paid income tax of ￡4,600 (￡11,500 x 40%).

正确答案：
Part (b):
The difference between a person specification and a job description is that a person specification sets out the qualities of an ideal
candidate whereas a job description defines the duties and responsibilities of the job.