如果澳门考生符合这些条件，那么ACCA证书就是为你量身订做的

正确答案：

 

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：
(c) The Shirtmaster Group has decided to structure itself using two divisions who are dealing with very different markets,
customers and buying behaviours. In so doing the intention is to provide more value to the customer through a better
understanding of their needs. The existence of the two divisions also reflects the origins of the two family businesses.
Mintzberg in his work on organisation design and structure sees divisional configurations as being appropriate in relatively
simple and static environments where significant strategic power is delegated from the ‘strategic apex’ to the ‘middle line‘
general managers with responsibility for the performance of the division. Indeed one of the benefits cited for divisionalised
companies is their ability to provide a good training ground in strategic decision making for general managers who can then
progress to senior positions at company headquarters. Tony Masters’s reluctance to delegate real strategic decision making
power to the senior managers in the Shirtmaster division may be preventing those managers developing key managerial skills.
Using the Boston Box model one could classify the Shirtmaster division as a ‘dog’ with low market share in a market exhibiting
change but little growth. The Corporate Clothing division, by contrast, can be regarded as a ‘problem child’ having a small
share but of a growing market. Porter’s ‘better-off test’ needs to be met – are the two divisions better off being in the same
Group? As it stands there seems little synergy between the two divisions – there seems to be little evidence of the two divisions
sharing resources or transferring skills or learning between the two divisions. Their two value chains and systems are both
separate and different though on the face of it there are many activities that are similar. Operating independently may
encourage healthy competition between the two divisions and consequently better performance through better motivated staff.
Specialised competences such as Corporate Clothing division’s on-line response to customer orders and design changes are
more easily developed within a divisionalised structure. Performance can be clearly identified and controlled and resources
channelled to those areas showing potential. However, this may be at the expense of costly duplication of resources and an
inability to get the necessary scale to compete in either of their separate markets. Certainly, the lack of co-operation betweenthe divisions in areas such as information systems may lead to higher costs and poorer performance.