有朋友知道ACCA的考试科目有哪些吗？

正确答案：
(d) Implications for Gerard of the changes to Fizz plc’s bonus scheme
Value received
Under the existing scheme Gerard receives approximately ￡4,500 each year. This is subject to income tax at 40% and
national insurance contributions at 1% such that Gerard receives ￡2,655 (￡4,500 x 59%) after all taxes.
Under the proposed share incentive plan (SIP), Gerard expects to receive free shares worth ￡3,500 (￡2,100 + ￡1,400).
Provided the shares remain in the plan for at least five years there will be no income tax or national insurance contributions
in respect of the value received. Gerard’s base cost in the shares for the purposes of capital gains tax will be their value at
the time they are withdrawn from the scheme.
In addition, the amount he spends on partnership shares will be allowable for both income tax and national insurance such
that he will obtain shares with a value of ￡700 for a cost of only ￡413 (￡700 x 59%).
Accordingly, Gerard will receive greater value under the SIP than he does under the existing bonus scheme. However, as noted
below, he will not be able to sell the free or matching shares until they have been in the scheme for at least three years by
which time they may have fallen in value.
Timing of receipt of benefit
Under the existing scheme Gerard receives a cash bonus each year.
The value of free and matching shares awarded under a SIP cannot be realised until the shares are withdrawn from the
scheme and sold. This withdrawal cannot take place until at least three years after the shares are awarded to Gerard.
Accordingly, Gerard will not have access to the value of the bonuses he receives under the SIP until the scheme has been in
operation for at least three years. In addition, if the shares are withdrawn within five years of being awarded, income tax and
national insurance contributions will become payable on the lower of their value at the time of the award and their value at
the time of withdrawal thus reducing the value of Gerard’s bonus.

正确答案：
(c) Briefing notes
To: Audit partner
From: Audit manager
Subject: Issues to consider regarding appointment as auditor of Medix Co
Introduction
Medix Co has recently invited our firm to become appointed as auditor. These briefing notes summarise the main issues we
should consider in deciding whether to take the appointment a stage further. My comments are based on a discussion held
with Ricardo Feller, finance director of Medix Co, a discussion with the current audit partner, and information provided in the
local newspaper.
Legal actions and investigations
There are several indications that Medix Co has a history of non compliance with law and regulations. The former finance
director is claiming unfair dismissal, and in the past the local authority has successfully taken legal action against the
company and has a current case pending. In addition, there have been two tax investigations in recent years hinting at noncompliance
with relevant tax regulations.
There are two problems for us in taking on a client with a propensity for legal actions and investigations. Firstly, the reputation
of the company must be considered. If we become associated with the company through being appointed as auditor, we could
be ‘tarred with the same brush’ and our own reputation also tarnished.
Secondly, we could become quickly exposed to an advocacy independence threat, which clearly should be avoided. Our
ethical status should not be compromised for the sake of gaining a new audit client. Mick Evans only ‘believes’ that the tax
matter has been resolved by the directors, and we should avoid taking on a new client which is involved in an on-going
investigation.
Public interest
The problems noted above are compounded by the bad publicity which the company is currently receiving. The local press
contained a recent article discussing Medix Co’s past and current breach of planning regulations. Given the current level of
public interest in environmental issues, and emphasis on corporate responsibility, it would seem that Medix Co has a poor
public perception, which we would not want to be associated with.
Potential liability to lender
The company is currently negotiating a significant bank loan, and the lender will be using the audited financial statements to
make a decision on whether to advance a loan, and the terms of any finance that might be advanced to Medix Co. This means
that our audit opinion for the forthcoming year end will be scrutinised by the lender, and our firm is exposed to a relatively
high risk of liability to a third party. Given that this will be our first audit, and the limited time we have available (discussed
below) our firm may feel that the risk of this audit engagement is too high. Should the appointment be accepted, disclaimers
should be put in place to ensure that we could not be sued in the event of the bank suffering a financial loss as a result of
their lending decision.
Timeframe. and resources
It is currently the last month of the financial year. If we are appointed as auditor we need to work quickly to develop a thorough
understanding of the business, and to begin to plan the assignment. We need to consider whether our firm has sufficient
resources to put together an audit team so quickly without detracting from other client work currently being conducted.
To make this matter worse, Mick Evans states that Medix Co likes ‘a quick audit’, and we need to consider how to manage
this expectation, as first year audit procedures such as systems documentation, and developing business understanding tend
to take a long time. We must be careful that the client does not pressure us into a ‘quick audit’, which could compromise
quality.
Medix Co operates in a reasonably specialist and highly regulated industry, so our firm should take care to ensure we have
expertise in this industry.
Potentially aggressive management style
There are several indicators that the management may take a confrontational approach, such as the unfair dismissal claim
brought against the company by the ex-finance director. In addition, the auditors prior to Mick Evans resigned following a
disagreement with management. This history shows that we may find it difficult to establish a good working relationship with
the management. As the company is owner managed the presence of a dominant managing director exacerbates this problem.
Management bias
There is incentive for the financial statements to be manipulated in order to secure bank finance. There is considerable risk
of material misstatement which our firm may consider to be unacceptably high.
Internal systems and controls
The current auditors have found systems and controls to be poor, and management has not acted upon recommendations
made by the auditors. Of course this does not mean that we should not take on the assignment – many companies have
weak controls. However, if we did take on the appointment, we would not be able to rely on controls or use a controls based
approach for the audit. We would need to take a substantive approach to the audit. One practical issue here is availability of
staff to conduct the audit testing, as substantive procedures tend to be more time consuming than if we could have taken a
systems based approach.
Opening balances
In all new audit assignments, work must be conducted to verify the opening balances. Given the possible fraud and poor
controls described above, we would need to perform. detailed testing on the opening balances as there is a high risk of fraud
and/or error in previous accounting periods. We may also wish to consider the competence of the previous auditors, who
appeared to disregard potential fraud indicator (two cash books) and had only one audit client.
Fees
Mick Evans has made it clear that Medix Co’s management likes to keep a tight control on costs, and it may put pressure on
us to charge a low audit fee. We need to bear in mind the risks associated with this engagement, as discussed above, and
only take on this high risk audit if the audit fee is high enough to compensate.
We should also consider the cash flow problems being experienced by the company. As a business we need to ensure that
we only take on clients with a good credit rating, and it seems that Medix Co, operating with an overdraft, may not be able
to pay our invoices.
Indication of fraud or money laundering
Surely the most serious issue to consider is that Jon Tate, the managing director, has kept two cash books. We need further
detail on this, but it clearly could indicate a fraud being perpetrated at the highest level of management. The fact that he has
maintained two cash books could indicate money laundering activites taking place, especially when considered in the context
of an owner-managed business with overseas operations. If this were the ONLY problem discovered it could be deemed
serious enough to bring to an end our appointment process. It would be reckless for our firm to take on a client where the
managing director is a fraudster.
Conclusion
Further information is needed in many areas before a final decision is made. However, from the information we have gathered
so far, it appears that Medix Co would represent a high risk client, and our firm must therefore be very careful to assess each
problem noted above before deciding whether to proceed with the appointment.

正确答案：
(c) It has become increasingly common for audit firms to include a disclaimer paragraph within the audit report. However, it is
not a requirement of auditing standards and individual audit firms need to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the
use of a disclaimer paragraph.
The wording is used to state the fact that the auditor’s report is intended solely for the use of the company’s members as a
body, and that no responsibility is accepted or assumed to anyone other than the company and the company’s members as
a body.
The main perceived advantage is that the disclaimer should help to reduce the exposure of the audit firm to liability claims
from anyone other than the company or the company’s body of shareholders. The disclaimer makes it clear that the audit
firm reports only to those who appointed the firm, i.e. the members of the company, and this may make it more difficult for
the audit firm to be sued by a third party.
It is also argued that the use of a disclaimer could help to bridge the ‘expectation gap’ by providing a clearer indication of the
responsibility of the auditor.
In this way the audit firm can manage its risk exposure in an increasingly litigious environment. Recent high profile legal cases
against audit firms, such as the Bannerman case in Scotland, illustrate that an audit firm’s duty of care can extend beyond
the company and its shareholders, and that audit firms should consider how to protect themselves against liability claims.
Tutorial note: It is appropriate here to quote recent cases such as the Bannerman case to illustrate the reason why audit
firms face increased potential exposure to claims from third parties. However, knowledge of specific legal cases is not
required to gain full marks for this requirement.
However, it can be argued that a disclaimer does not necessarily work to protect an audit firm. Each legal case has individual
circumstances, and while a disclaimer might protect the audit firm in one situation, equally it may not offer any protection
where the facts of the case are different.
In addition, it is often argued that if an audit firm conducts an audit using full due care and diligence, there is no need for a
disclaimer, as a high quality audit would be very unlikely to lead to any claims against the audit firm. Consequently, it could
be argued that the use of disclaimers as a means to limit liability could permit low quality audits to be performed, the auditors
being confident that legal cases against them are restricted due to the presence of a disclaimer within the audit report.