如果海南省考生符合这些条件，那么ACCA证书就是为你量身订做的

正确答案：

正确答案：
(a) The main reasons why the three accounting standards boards have decided to come together in a joint project regarding a
single performance statement are as follows:
(i) there are many different formats and classifications used for financial statements and different time periods used for
comparative data in different countries.
(ii) there are no common definitions as regards the key elements of financial performance and no agreement on the standard
definitions of the key ratios which would then determine the nature of the information that financial statements should
provide. There has been an increase in the reporting of alternative and often inconsistent financial performance
measures that has led to confusion and often has misled users.
(iii) there has been an increase in the use of pro-forma reporting which would tend to suggest that the existing totals and
sub totals in financial statements are not being used or relied upon as much as in the past.
(iv) there are benefits in separating transactions and events that are recorded at historical cost from those recorded at fair
value. Also, the differentiation between trading and holding gains gives useful information. This ‘mixed attribute’ model
is causing concern over the effects on reported performance.
(v) there is often insufficient disaggregation of data which prevents effective financial analysis of performance.
(vi) there has been an inconsistency in the use of ‘recycling ‘in financial statements of different jurisdictions which has led
to issues of reporting gains and losses twice.
(vii) the reporting of gains and losses on financial instruments required consideration. The gains and losses may currently be
reported under several headings dependent upon the nature of the instrument.
(viii) there are many relevant items excluded from the performance statements and inappropriate items included. For example
the reporting of foreign currency gains/losses on the retranslation of the net investment in foreign operations is normally
recognised in equity in many countries and dividends proposed shown on the face of the income statement when it does
not meet the definition of a liability and is a transaction with the owners of the business and not third parties.
(ix) Information is inconsistently classified within and outside totals and subtotals.

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：
(iv) Stamp duty and stamp duty land tax
– The purchase of Tethys Ltd will give rise to a liability to ad valorem stamp duty of ￡1,175 (￡235,000 x 0·5%).
The stamp duty must be paid by Saturn Ltd within 30 days of the share transfer in order to avoid interest being
charged. It is not an allowable expense for the purposes of corporation tax.