ACCA考试好像有免考政策，具体是什么情况呢？

发布时间：2021-06-08

ACCA考试好像有免考政策，具体是什么情况呢？

最佳答案

ACCA对有志参加ACCA专业资格考试的中国学员将执行以下免试政策，详情如下：
一、注册报名资格 免试情况
教育部认可高校毕业生。
会计学 – 获得学士学位 免试5门课程（F1-F5）。
会计学 – 辅修专业 免试3门课程（F1-F3）。
金融专业 免试5门课程（F1-F5）。
法律专业 免试1门课程（F4）。
商务及管理专业 免试1门课程（F1）。
MPAcc专业(获得MPAcc学位或完成MPAcc大纲规定的所有课程、只有论文待完成) 原则上免试九门课程（F1–F9），其中F6（税务）的免试条件：CICPA全科通过或MPAcc课程中选修了“中国税制”课程。。
MBA学位 – 获得MBA学位 免试3门课程（F1-F3）。
非相关专业 无免试。
二、教育部认可高校在校生。
会计学 – 完成第一学年课程 可以注册为ACCA正式学员，无免试。
会计学 – 完成第二学年课程 免试3门课程(F1-F3)。
会计学 – 完成第三学年课程 免试3门课程（ F1-F3）。
其他专业 – 在校生 无免试。

下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题，供大家学习参考。

10 Which of the following costs should be included in valuing inventories of finished goods held by a manufacturing

company, according to IAS2 Inventories?

1 Carriage inwards.

2 Carriage outwards.

3 Depreciation of factory plant.

4 Accounts department costs relating to wages for production employees.

A All four items

B 2 and 3 only

C 1, 3 and 4 only

D 1 and 4 only

正确答案：C

(b) Provide the directors of Acrux Ltd with a detailed explanation of the maximum rate of tax that will be suffered

on both the distributed and non-distributed profits of the non-UK resident investee companies where:

(1) there is a double tax treaty between the UK and the country in which the individual companies are

resident; and

(2) there is no such double tax treaty.

Note: you are not required to explain the position of the overseas resident branches. (6 marks)

正确答案：
(b) Rate of tax on profits of non-UK resident investee companies
Undistributed profits
The companies will be subject to tax in the countries in which they are resident; this is because of their residency status or
because they have a permanent establishment in that country. Undistributed profits will not be taxed in the UK.
The rate of tax on undistributed profits will therefore be the rate of tax in the country of residency of the respective companies.
Distributed profits with double tax treaty
The dividends received by Acrux Ltd from each of the overseas companies will be grossed up in respect of underlying tax (the
overseas corporation tax paid on the distributed profits) because Acrux Ltd will own at least 10% of the overseas companies.
The gross amount will then be included in Acrux Ltd’s profits chargeable to corporation tax.
The treaty will provide double tax relief in the UK for the overseas tax suffered in respect of each dividend up to a maximum
of the UK tax on the grossed up overseas dividend. As a result of the double tax relief, the overall rate of tax suffered will be
the higher of the UK rate paid by Acrux Ltd and the overseas tax rate borne by the overseas company.
Where the rate of overseas tax in respect of a particular dividend exceeds the rate of corporation tax in the UK, excess foreign
tax will arise. This can be relieved, via onshore pooling, against the UK tax due on those dividends where the rate of tax in
the UK exceeds the rate overseas. This will reduce the overall rate of tax suffered on the total overseas profits of the overseas
companies as a whole.
Distributed profits with no double tax treaty
Where there is no double tax treaty, unilateral double tax relief will be available in the UK. This relief will operate in the same
way as double tax relief under a double tax treaty such that the overall rate of tax on each dividend will be the higher of the
UK rate paid by Acrux Ltd and the overseas rate borne by the overseas company. Relief via onshore pooling will also be
available.

1 The Great Western Cake Company (GWCC) is a well-established manufacturer of specialist flour confectionery

products, including cakes. GWCC sells its products to national supermarket chains. The company’s success during

recent years is largely attributable to its ability to develop innovative products which appeal to the food selectors within

national supermarket chains.

The marketing department of Superstores plc, a national supermarket chain has asked GWCC to manufacture a cake

known as the ‘Mighty Ben’. Mighty Ben is a character who has recently appeared in a film which was broadcast

around the world. The cake is expected to have a minimum market life of one year although the marketing department

consider that this might extend to eighteen months.

The management accountant of GWCC has collated the following estimated information in respect of the Mighty Ben

cake:

(1) Superstores plc has decided on a launch price of ￡20·25 for the Mighty Ben cake and it is expected that this

price will be maintained for the duration of the product’s life. Superstores plc will apply a 35% mark-up on the

purchase price of each cake from GWCC.

(2) Sales of the Mighty Ben cake are expected to be 100,000 units per month during the first twelve months.

Thereafter sales of the Mighty Ben cake are expected to decrease by 10,000 units in each subsequent month.

(3) Due to the relatively short shelf-life of the Mighty Ben cake, management has decided to manufacture the cakes

on a ‘just-in-time’ basis for delivery in accordance with agreed schedules. The cakes will be manufactured in

batches of 1,000. Direct materials input into the baking process will cost ￡7,000 per batch for each of the first

three months’ production. The material cost of the next three months’ production is expected to be 95% of the

cost of the first three months’ production. All batches manufactured thereafter will cost 90% of the cost of the

second three months’ production.

(4) Packaging costs will amount to ￡0·75 per cake. The original costs of the artwork and design of the packaging

will amount to ￡24,000. Superstores plc will reimburse GWCC ￡8,000 in the event that the product is

withdrawn from sale after twelve months.

(5) The design of the Mighty Ben cake is such that it is required to be hand-finished. A 75% learning curve will

apply to the total labour time requirement until the end of month five. Thereafter a steady state will apply with

labour time required per batch stabilising at that of the final batch in month five. The labour requirement for the

first batch of Mighty Ben cakes to be manufactured is expected to be 6,000 hours at ￡10 per hour.

(6) A royalty of 5% of sales revenue (subject to a maximum royalty of ￡1·1 million) will be payable by GWCC to the

owners of the Mighty Ben copyright.

(7) Variable overheads are estimated at ￡3·50 per direct labour hour.

(8) The manufacture of the Mighty Ben cake will increase fixed overheads by ￡75,000 per month.

(9) In order to provide a production facility dedicated to the Mighty Ben cake, an investment of ￡1,900,000 will be

required and this will be fully depreciated over twelve months.

(10) The directors of GWCC require an average annual return of 35% on their investment over 12 months and

18 months.

(11) Ignore taxation and the present value of cash flows.

Note: Learning curve formula:

y = axb

where y = average cost per batch

a = the cost of the initial batch

x = the total number of batches

b = learning index (= –0·415 for 75% learning rate)

Required:

(a) Prepare detailed calculations to show whether the manufacture of Mighty Ben cakes will provide the required

rate of return for GWCC over periods of twelve months and eighteen months. (20 marks)

正确答案：

(a) Kayte operates in the shipping industry and owns vessels for transportation. In June 2014, Kayte acquired Ceemone whose assets were entirely investments in small companies. The small companies each owned and operated one or two shipping vessels. There were no employees in Ceemone or the small companies. At the acquisition date, there were only limited activities related to managing the small companies as most activities were outsourced. All the personnel in Ceemone were employed by a separate management company. The companies owning the vessels had an agreement with the management company concerning assistance with chartering, purchase and sale of vessels and any technical management. The management company used a shipbroker to assist with some of these tasks.

Kayte accounted for the investment in Ceemone as an asset acquisition. The consideration paid and related transaction costs were recognised as the acquisition price of the vessels. Kayte argued that the vessels were only passive investments and that Ceemone did not own a business consisting of processes, since all activities regarding commercial and technical management were outsourced to the management company. As a result, the acquisition was accounted for as if the vessels were acquired on a stand-alone basis.

Additionally, Kayte had borrowed heavily to purchase some vessels and was struggling to meet its debt obligations. Kayte had sold some of these vessels but in some cases, the bank did not wish Kayte to sell the vessel. In these cases, the vessel was transferred to a new entity, in which the bank retained a variable interest based upon the level of the indebtedness. Kayte’s directors felt that the entity was a subsidiary of the bank and are uncertain as to whether they have complied with the requirements of IFRS 3 Business Combinations and IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements as regards the above transactions. (12 marks)

(b) Kayte’s vessels constitute a material part of its total assets. The economic life of the vessels is estimated to be 30 years, but the useful life of some of the vessels is only 10 years because Kayte’s policy is to sell these vessels when they are 10 years old. Kayte estimated the residual value of these vessels at sale to be half of acquisition cost and this value was assumed to be constant during their useful life. Kayte argued that the estimates of residual value used were conservative in view of an immature market with a high degree of uncertainty and presented documentation which indicated some vessels were being sold for a price considerably above carrying value. Broker valuations of the residual value were considerably higher than those used by Kayte. Kayte argued against broker valuations on the grounds that it would result in greater volatility in reporting.

Kayte keeps some of the vessels for the whole 30 years and these vessels are required to undergo an engine overhaul in dry dock every 10 years to restore their service potential, hence the reason why some of the vessels are sold. The residual value of the vessels kept for 30 years is based upon the steel value of the vessel at the end of its economic life. At the time of purchase, the service potential which will be required to be restored by the engine overhaul is measured based on the cost as if it had been performed at the time of the purchase of the vessel. In the current period, one of the vessels had to have its engine totally replaced after only eight years. Normally, engines last for the 30-year economic life if overhauled every 10 years. Additionally, one type of vessel was having its funnels replaced after 15 years but the funnels had not been depreciated separately. (11 marks)

Required:

Discuss the accounting treatment of the above transactions in the financial statements of Kayte.

Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the elements above.

Professional marks will be awarded in question 3 for clarity and quality of presentation. (2 marks)

正确答案：

(a) The accounting for the transaction as an asset acquisition does not comply with the requirements of IFRS 3 Business Combinations and should have been accounted as a business combination. This would mean that transaction costs would be expensed, the vessels recognised at fair value, any deferred tax recognised at nominal value and the difference between these amounts and the consideration paid to be recognised as goodwill.

In accordance with IFRS 3, an entity should determine whether a transaction is a business combination by applying the definition of a business in IFRS 3. A business is an integrated set of activities and assets which is capable of being conducted and managed for the purpose of providing a return in the form. of dividends, lower costs or other economic benefits directly to investors or other owners, members or participants. A business consists of inputs and processes applied to those inputs which have the ability to create outputs. Although businesses usually have outputs, outputs are not required to qualify as a business.

When analysing the transaction, the following elements are relevant:

(i) Inputs: Shares in vessel owning companies, charter arrangements, outsourcing arrangements with a management company, and relationships with a shipping broker.

(ii) Processes: Activities regarding chartering and operating the vessels, financing the business, purchase and sales of vessels.

(iii) Outputs: Ceemone would generate revenue from charter agreements and has the ability to gain economic benefit from the vessels.

IFRS 3 states that whether a seller operated a set of assets and activities as a business or intends to operate it as a business is not relevant in evaluating whether it is a business. It is not relevant therefore that some activities were outsourced as Ceemone could chose to conduct and manage the integrated set of assets and activities as a business. As a result, the acquisition included all the elements which constitute a business, in accordance with IFRS 3.

IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements sets out the situation where an investor controls an investee. This is the case, if and only if, the investor has all of the following elements:

(i) power over the investee, that is, the investor has existing rights which give it the ability to direct the relevant activities (the activities which significantly affect the investee’s returns);

(ii) exposure, or rights, to variable returns from its involvement with the investee;

(iii) the ability to use its power over the investee to affect the amount of the investor’s returns.

Where a party has all three elements, then it is a parent; where at least one element is missing, then it is not. In every case, IFRS 10 looks to the substance of the arrangement and not just to its legal form. Each situation needs to be assessed individually. The question arises in this case as to whether the entities created are subsidiaries of the bank. The bank is likely to have power over the investee, may be exposed to variable returns and certainly may have the power to affect the amount of the returns. Thus the bank is likely to have a measure of control but the extent will depend on the constitution of the entity.

(b) Kayte’s calculation of the residual value of the vessels with a 10-year useful life is unacceptable under IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment because estimating residual value based on acquisition cost does not comply with the requirements of IAS 16. Kayte should prepare a new model to determine residual value which would take account of broker valuations at the end of each reporting period and which would produce zero depreciation charge when estimated residual value was higher than the carrying amount.

IAS 16 paragraph 6 defines residual value as the estimated amount which an entity would currently obtain from disposal of the asset, after deducting the estimated costs of disposal, if the asset were already at the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life.

IAS 16 requires the residual value to be reviewed at least at the end of each financial year end with the depreciable amount of an asset allocated on a systematic basis over its useful life. IAS 16 specifies that the depreciable amount of an asset is determined after deducting its residual value.

Kayte’s original model implied that the residual value was constant for the vessel’s entire useful life. The residual value has to be adjusted especially when an expected sale approaches, and the residual value has to come closer to disposal proceeds minus disposal costs at the end of the useful life. IAS 16 says that in cases when the residual value is greater than the asset’s carrying amount, the depreciation charge is zero unless and until its residual value subsequently decreases to an amount below the asset’s carrying amount. The residual value should be the value at the reporting date as if the vessel were already of the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life. An increase in the expected residual value of an asset because of past events will affect the depreciable amount, while expectation of future changes in residual value other than the effects of expected wear and tear will not. There is no guidance in IAS 16 on how to estimate residual value when the useful life is considered to be shorter than the economic life. Undesirable volatility is not a convincing argument to support the accounting treatment, and broker valuations could be a useful starting point to estimate residual value.

As regards the vessels which are kept for the whole of their economic life, a residual value based upon the scrap value of steel is acceptable. Therefore the vessels should be depreciated based upon the cost less the scrap value of steel over the 30-year period. The engine need not be componentised as it will have the same 30-year life if maintained every 10 years. It is likely that the cost of major planned maintenance will increase over the life of a vessel due to inflation and the age of the vessel. This additional cost will be capitalised when incurred and therefore the depreciation charge on these components may be greater in the later stages of a vessel’s life.

When major planned maintenance work is to be undertaken, the cost should be capitalised. The engine overhaul will be capitalised as a new asset which will then be depreciated over the 10-year period to the next overhaul. The depreciation of the original capitalised amount will typically be calculated such that it had a net book value of nil when the overhaul is undertaken.

This is not the case with one vessel, because work was required earlier than expected. In this case, any remaining net book value of the old engine and overhaul cost should be expensed immediately.

The initial carve out of components should include all major maintenance events which are likely to occur over the economic life of the vessel. Sometimes, it may subsequently be found that the initial allocation was insufficiently detailed, in that not all components were identified. This is the case with the funnels. In this situation it is necessary to determine what the net book value of the component would currently be had it been initially identified. This will sometimes require the initial cost to be determined by reference to the replacement cost and the associated accumulated depreciation charge determined using the rate used for the vessel. This is likely to leave a significant net book value in the component being replaced, which will need to be written off at the time the replacement is capitalised.

声明：本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传，本网站不拥有所有权，未作人工编辑处理，也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容，欢迎发送邮件至：contact@51tk.com 进行举报，并提供相关证据，工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你，一经查实，本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

站内搜索
热门标签