acca机考成绩什么时候可以查询？

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
6 REQUIREMENTS IN GROUP AUDITS
Tutorial note: The answer which follows is indicative of the range of points which might be made. Other relevant material will be
given suitable credit.
(a) Significant issues
Tutorial note: The objective of the IAASB’s project on the audit of group financial statements (‘group audits’) was to deal
with special considerations in group audits and, in particular, the involvement of other auditors. The re-exposure of ISA 600
(Revised and Redrafted) in March 2006 (following initial publication of a proposed revised ISA in December 2003 and an
exposure draft in March 2005) reflects the significance of the issues that the IAASB has sought to address.
Sole vs divided responsibility
The IAASB has concluded that the group auditor has sole responsibility for the group audit opinion. Thus the exposure drafts
eliminate the distinction between sole and divided responsibility. Therefore no reference to another auditor (e.g. of significant
components) should be made in the group auditor’s report. The practice of referring to another auditor may, arguably, be more
transparent to users of group financial statements. However, it may also mislead users to believe that the group auditor does
not have sole responsibility.
Definition of group auditor
The group auditor is the auditor who signs the auditor’s report on the group financial statements. The project has sought to
clarify whether, for example, an auditor from another office of the group engagement partner’s firm is a member of the group
engagement team or an ‘other auditor’.
‘Related’ vs ‘unrelated’ auditors
IAASB recognises that the nature, timing and extent of procedures performed by the group auditor, including the review of
the other auditor’s audit documentation, are affected by the group auditor’s relationship with the other audit. (For example,
if the other auditor operates under the quality control policies and procedures of the group auditor.) However, IAASB
acknowledges that a consistent distinction between ‘related’ and ‘unrelated’ auditors cannot be made due to the varying
structures of audit firms and their networks. Consequently, the only distinction that is made is between the ‘group’ and ‘other’
auditors.
Acceptance/continuance as group auditor
A group auditor should only accept or continue an engagement if sufficient appropriate evidence is expected to be obtained
on which to base the group audit opinion. Acceptance and continuance as group auditors therefore requires an assessment
of the risk of misstatement in components. IAASB has therefore proposed guidance on the benchmarks that might be used
in identifying significant components.
Access to information
IAASB has concluded that a group audit engagement should be refused (or resigned from) if the group engagement partner
concludes that it will not be possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the result of which would be a disclaimer.
However, if the group engagement partner is prohibited from refusing or resigning an engagement, the group audit opinion
must be disclaimed.
Aggregation of components
Sufficient appropriate audit evidence must be obtained in respect of components that are not individually significant (but
significant in aggregate). This requires that components be selected for audit procedures (e.g. on specified account balances).
Analytical procedures are required to be performed on components that are not selected. IAASB has therefore identified factors
to be considered in selecting components that are not individually significant.
Responsibilities of other auditors
Historically, other auditors, knowing the context in which their work will be used by the group auditor, have been required to
cooperate with the group auditor. However, the project did not address guidance for other auditors. Therefore, in providing
guidance on the group audit, the IAASB requires the group auditor to obtain an understanding of the requirements for other
auditors to cooperate with the group auditor and provide access to relevant documentation.

正确答案：
(b) It is not uncommon for audit firms to word process and typeset the financial statements of their clients, especially where the
client is a relatively small entity, which may lack the resources and skills to perform. this task. It is not prohibited by ethical
standards.
However, there could be a perceived threat to independence, with risk magnified in the case of Blod Co, which is a listed
company. The auditors could be perceived to be involved with the preparation of the financial statements of a listed client
company, which is prohibited by ethical standards. IFAC’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants states that for a listed
client, the audit firm should not be involved with the preparation of financial statements, which would create a self-review
threat so severe that safeguards could not reduce the threat to an acceptable level. Although the typing of financial statements
itself is not prohibited by ethical guidance, the risk is that providing such a service could be perceived to be an element of
the preparation of the financial statements.
It is possible that during the process of typing the financial statements, decisions and judgments would be made. This could
be perceived as making management decisions in relation to the financial statements, a clear breach of independence.
Therefore to eliminate any risk exposure, the prudent decision would be not to type the financial statements, ensuring that
Blod Co appreciates the ethical problems that this would cause.
Tutorial note: This is an area not specifically covered by ethical guides, where different audit firms may have different views
on whether it is acceptable to provide a typing service for the financial statements of their clients. Credit will be awarded for
sensible discussion of the issues raised bearing in mind other options for the audit firm, for example, it could be argued that
it is acceptable to offer the typing service provided that it is performed by people independent of the audit team, and that
the matter has been discussed with the audit committee/those charged with governance

正确答案：
(ii) Evidence supporting the assertion that development costs are technically feasible would include the following:
– Review the results of scientific tests performed on the products, for example, the results of animal or human testing
of the products.
– Discuss any detrimental results of these tests, e.g. harmful side effects, with the scientists working on the project
to determine what corrective action is being taken.
– Enquire whether any licences necessary for continued development and/or commercial production have been
granted by the appropriate regulatory body.
– Compare expected to actual development costs incurred per product being developed. Where actual costs are in
excess of expected costs investigate whether the extra costs have been incurred in order to make good any problems
identified in the development process.
– Review board minutes for relevant discussion of the product development taking place during the year.