2020年ACCA考试报名条件：自考、成考能不能参加？

正确答案：
(b) It is important to note that there is nothing in the nature of the activities carried out by HR staff and departments that prevents
outsourcing being looked at as a serious option. Indeed, amongst larger companies the outsourcing of some parts of the HR
function is already well under way, with one source estimating that HR outsourcing is growing by 27% each year. Paul,
therefore, needs to look at the HR activities identified above and assess the advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing a
particular HR activity. Outsourcing certain parts of the recruitment process has long been accepted, with professional
recruitment agencies and ‘head-hunters’ being heavily involved in the advertising and short listing of candidates for senior
management positions. Some HR specialists argue that outsourcing much of the routine personnel work, including
maintaining employees’ records, frees the HR specialist to make a real contribution to the strategic planning process. One
study argues that ‘HR should become a partner with senior and line managers in strategy execution’.
If Paul is able to outsource the routine HR activities this will free him to contribute to the development of the growth strategy
and the critical people needs that strategy will require. In many ways the HR specialist is in a unique position to assess current
skills and capabilities of existing staff and the extent to which these can be ‘leveraged’ to achieve the desired strategy. In
Hamel and Prahalad’s terms this strategy is likely to ‘stretch’ the people resources of the company and require the recruitment
of additional staff with the relevant capabilities. Paul needs to show how long it will take to develop the necessary staff
resources as this will significantly influence the time needed to achieve the growth strategy.
Outsourcing passes on to the provider the heavy investment needed if the company sets up its own internal HR services with
much of this investment now going into web-based systems. The benefits are reduced costs and improved service quality.
The downside is a perceived loss of control and a reduced ability to differentiate the HR function from that of competitors.
Issues of employee confidentiality are also relevant in the decision to outsource.

正确答案：
(c) Absolutism and relativism
Absolutism and relativism represent two extreme positions of ethical assumptions.
Definitions
An absolutist assumption is one that believes that there are ‘eternal’ rules that should guide all ethical and moral decision
making in all situations. Accordingly, in any given situation, there is likely to be one right course of action regardless of the
outcome. An absolutist believes that this should be chosen regardless of the consequences or the cost. A dogmatic approach
to morality is an example of an absolutist approach to ethics. A dogmatic assumption is one that is accepted without
discussion or debate.
Relativist assumptions are ‘situational’ in nature. Rather than arguing that there is a single right choice, a relativist will tend
to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide, in the light of the situation being considered, which is the best outcome. This will
involve a decision on what outcome is the most favourable and that is a matter of personal judgment.
Outcomes
If Anne were to adopt absolutist/dogmatic assumptions, she would be likely to decide that she would need to pursue what
she perceives is the right course of action regardless of cost to herself or the relationship with the client or her manager. Given
that she unearthed a suspect and unaccounted-for payment, and that she received an inadequate explanation from the client,
she would probably recommend extension to the audit beyond the weekend.
If Ann were to adopt relativist or pragmatic assumptions, she would have a potentially much more complicated decision to
make. She would have to decide whether it was more important, ethically, to yield to the pressure from Zachary in the
interests of her short-term career interests or ‘hold out’ to protect the interests of the shareholders. Anne could recommend
sign off and trust the FD’s explanation but she is more likely to seek further evidence or assurance from the company before
she does so.

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).