点击查看：2020年ACCA考试练习试题分享08

正确答案：

(b) Accounting in the financial statements for the year ended 31 May 2005
IFRS2 requires an expense to be recognised for the share options granted to the directors with a corresponding amount shown
in equity. Where options do not vest immediately but only after a period of service, then there is a presumption that the
services will be rendered over the ‘vesting period’. The fair value of the services rendered will be measured by reference to
the fair value of the equity instruments at the date that the equity instruments were granted. Fair value should be based on
market prices. The treatment of vesting conditions depends on whether or not the conditions relate to the market price of the
instruments. Market conditions are effectively taken into account in determining the fair value of the instruments and therefore
can be ignored for the purposes of estimating the number of equity instruments that will vest. For other conditions such as
remaining in the employment of the company, the calculations are carried out based on the best estimate of the number of
instruments that will vest. The estimate is revised when subsequent information is available.
The share options granted to J. Van Heflin on 1 June 2002 were before the date set in IFRS2 for accounting for such options
(7 November 2002). Therefore, no expense calculation is required. (Note: candidates calculating the expense for the latter
share options would be given credit if they stated that the company could apply IFRS2 to other options in certaincircumstances.) The remaining options are valued as follows:

正确答案：

Gow’s net assets
IAS36 ‘Impairment of Assets’, sets out the events that might indicate that an asset is impaired. These circumstances include
external events such as the decline in the market value of an asset and internal events such as a reduction in the cash flows
to be generated from an asset or cash generating unit. The loss of the only customer of a cash generating unit (power station)
would be an indication of the possible impairment of the cash generating unit. Therefore, the power station will have to be
impairment tested.
The recoverable amount will have to be determined and compared to the value given to the asset on the setting up of the
joint venture. The recoverable amount is the higher of the cash generating unit’s fair value less costs to sell, and its value-inuse.
The fair value less costs to sell will be $15 million which is the offer for the purchase of the power station ($16 million)
less the costs to sell ($1 million). The value-in-use is the discounted value of the future cash flows expected to arise from the
cash generating unit. The future dismantling costs should be provided for as it has been agreed with the government that it
will be dismantled. The cost should be included in the future cash flows for the purpose of calculating value-in-use and
provided for in the financial statements and the cost added to the property, plant and equipment ($4 million ($5m/1·064)).
The value-in-use based on a discount rate of 6 per cent is $21 million (working). Therefore, the recoverable amount is
$21 million which is higher than the carrying value of the cash generating unit ($20 million) and, therefore, the value of the
cash generating unit is not impaired when compared to the present carrying value of $20 million (value before impairment
test).
Additionally IAS39, ‘Financial Instruments: recognition and measurement’, says that an entity must assess at each balance
sheet date whether a financial asset is impaired. In this case the receivable of $7 million is likely to be impaired as Race is
going into administration. The present value of the estimated future cash flows will be calculated. Normally cash receipts from
trade receivables will not be discounted but because the amounts are not likely to be received for a year then the anticipated
cash payment is 80% of ($5 million × 1/1·06), i.e. $3·8 million. Thus a provision for the impairment of the trade receivables
of $3·2 million should be made. The intangible asset of $3 million would be valueless as the contract has been terminated.
Glass’s Net Assets
The leased property continues to be accounted for as property, plant and equipment and the carrying amount will not be
adjusted. However, the remaining useful life of the property will be revised to reflect the shorter term. Thus the property will
be depreciated at $2 million per annum over the next two years. The change to the depreciation period is applied prospectively
not retrospectively. The lease liability must be assessed under IAS39 in order to determine whether it constitutes a
de-recognition of a financial liability. As the change is a modification of the lease and not an extinguishment, the lease liability
would not be derecognised. The lease liability will be adjusted for the one off payment of $1 million and re-measured to the
present value of the revised future cash flows. That is $0·6 million/1·07 + $0·6 million/(1·07 × 1·07) i.e. $1·1 million. The
adjustment to the lease liability would normally be recognised in profit or loss but in this case it will affect the net capital
contributed by Glass.
The termination cost of the contract cannot be treated as an intangible asset. It is similar to redundancy costs paid to terminate
a contract of employment. It represents compensation for the loss of future income for the agency. Therefore it must be
removed from the balance sheet of York. The recognition criteria for an intangible asset require that there should be probable
future economic benefits flowing to York and the cost can be measured reliably. The latter criterion is met but the first criterion
is not. The cost of gaining future customers is not linked to this compensation.
IAS18 ‘Revenue’ contains a concept of a ‘multiple element’ arrangement. This is a contract which contains two or more
elements which are in substance separate and are separately identifiable. In other words, the two elements can operate
independently from each other. In this case, the contract with the overseas company has two distinct elements. There is a
contract not to supply gas to any other customer in the country and there is a contract to sell gas at fair value to the overseas
company. The contract has not been fulfilled as yet and therefore the payment of $1·5 million should not be taken to profit
or loss in its entirety at the first opportunity. The non supply of gas to customers in that country occurs over the four year
period of the contract and therefore the payment should be recognised over that period. Therefore the amount should be
shown as deferred income and not as a deduction from intangible assets. The revenue on the sale of gas will be recognised
as normal according to IAS18.
There may be an issue over the value of the net assets being contributed. The net assets contributed by Glass amount to
$21·9 million whereas those contributed by Gow only total $13·8 million after taking into account any adjustments required
by IFRS. The joint venturers have equal shareholding in York but no formal written agreements, thus problems may arise ifGlass feels that the contributions to the joint venture are unequal.

正确答案：
(ii) Control weakness
ISA 260 contains guidance on the type of issues that should be communicated. One of the matters identified is a control
weakness in the capital expenditure transaction cycle. The assets for which no authorisation was obtained amount to
0·3% of total assets (225,000/78 million x 100%), which is clearly immaterial. However, regardless of materiality, the
auditor should ensure that the weakness is brought to the attention of the management, with a clear indication of the
implication of the weakness, and recommendations as to how the control weakness should be eliminated.
The auditor is providing information to help those charged with governance improve the internal systems and controls
and ultimately reduce business risk. In this case there is a high risk of fraud, as the lack of authorisation for purchase
of office equipment could allow expenditure on assets not used for bona fide business purposes.
Disagreement with accounting treatment of brand
Audit procedures have revealed a breach of IAS 38 Intangible Assets, in which internally generated brand names are
specifically prohibited from being recognised. Blod Co has recognised an internally generated brand name which is
material to the statement of financial position (balance sheet) as it represents 12·8% of total assets (10/78 x 100%).
The statement of financial position (balance sheet) therefore contains a material misstatement.
The report to those charged with governance should clearly explain the rules on recognition of internally generated brand
names, to ensure that the management has all relevant technical facts available. In the report the auditors should
request that the financial statements be corrected, and clarify that if the brand is not derecognised, then the audit opinion
will be qualified on the grounds of a material disagreement – an ‘except for’ opinion would be provided. Once the breach
of IAS 38 is made clear to the management in the report, they then have the opportunity to discuss the matter and
decide whether to amend the financial statements, thereby avoiding a qualified audit opinion.
Audit inefficiencies
Documentation relating to inventories was not always made readily available to the auditors. This seems to be due to
poor administration by the client rather than a deliberate attempt to conceal information. The report should contain a
brief description of the problems encountered by the audit team. The management should be made aware that
significant delay to the receipt of necessary paperwork can cause inefficiencies in the audit process. This may seem a
relatively trivial issue, but it could lead to an increase in audit fee. Management should react to these comments by
ensuring as far as possible that all requested documentation is made available to the auditors in a timely fashion.