全国非会计专业考生能报名参加ACCA国际会计师考试吗？

正确答案：
(b) Critical success factors are as follows:
Product quality
The fact that the production staff have no previous experience in a food production environment is likely to prove problematic.
It is vital that a comprehensive training programme is put in place at the earliest opportunity. HSC need to reach and maintain
the highest level of product quality as soon as possible.
Supply quality
The quality of delivery into SFG supermarkets assumes critical significance. Time literally will be of the essence since 90%
of all sandwiches are sold in SFG’s supermarkets before 2 pm each day. Hence supply chain management must be extremely
robust as there is very little scope for error.
Technical quality
Compliance with existing regulations regarding food production including all relevant factory health and safety requirements
is vital in order to establish and maintain the reputation of HSC as a supplier of quality products. The ability to store products
at the correct temperature is critical because sandwiches are produced for human consumption and in extreme circumstance
could cause fatalities.
External credibility
Accreditation by relevant trade associations/regulators will be essential if nationwide acceptance of HSC as a major producer
of sandwiches is to be established.
New product development
Whilst HSC have developed a range of healthy eating sandwiches it must be recognised that consumer tastes change and
that in the face of competition there will always be a need for a continuous focus on new product development.
Margin
Whilst HSC need to recognise all other critical success factors they should always be mindful that the need to obtain the
desired levels of gross and net margin remain of the utmost importance.
Notes: (i) Only five critical success factors were required.
(ii) Alternative relevant discussion and examples would be acceptable.

正确答案：
(c) Social and environmental responsibilities
Performance indicators
■ Absolute ($) and relative (%) level of investment in sports sponsorship, and funding to the Shire Ward.
■ Increasing number of championship events and participating schools/students as compared with prior year.
■ Number of medals/trophies sponsored at events and/or number awarded to Shire sponsored schools/students.
■ Number of patients treated (successfully) a week/month. Average bed occupancy (daily/weekly/monthly and cumulative
to date).
■ Staffing levels (e.g. of volunteers for sports events, Shire Ward staff and the company):
? ratio of starters to leavers/staff turnover;
? absenteeism (average number of days per person per annum).
1 Withdrawal of the new licence would not create a going concern issue.
2 May also be described as ‘exploration and evaluation’ costs or ‘discovery and assessment’.
■ Number of:
– breaches of health and safety regulations and environmental regulations;
– oil spills;
– accidents and employee fatalities;
– insurance claims.
Evidence
Tutorial note: As there is a wide range of performance indicators that candidates could suggest, there is always a wide range
of possible sources of audit evidence. As the same evidence may contribute to providing assurance on more than one
measure they are not tabulated here, to avoid duplication. However, candidates may justifiably adopt a tabular layout. Also
note, that where measures may be expressed as evidence (e.g. trophies awarded) marks should be awarded only once.
■ Actual level of investment ($) compared with budget and budget compared with prior period.
Tutorial note: Would expect actual to be at least greater than prior year if performance in these areas (health and
safety) has improved.
■ Physical evidence of favourable increases on prior year, for example:
? medals/cups sponsored;
? number of beds available.
■ Increase in favourable press coverage/reports of sponsored events. (Decrease in adverse press about
accidents/fatalities.)
■ Independent surveys (e.g. by marine conservation organisations, welfare groups, etc) comparing Shire favourably with
other oil producers.
■ A reduction in fines paid compared with budget (and prior year).
■ Reduction in legal fees and claims being settled as evidenced by fee notes and correspondence files.
■ Amounts settled on insurance claims and level of insurance cover as compared with prior period.

正确答案：

(b) (i) Appropriateness of audit opinion given
Tutorial note: The answer points suggested by the marking scheme are listed in roughly the order in which they might
be extracted from the information presented in the question. The suggested answer groups together some of these
points under headings to give the analysis of the situation a possible structure.
Heading
■ The opinion paragraph is not properly headed. It does not state the form. of the opinion that has been given nor
the grounds for qualification.
■ The opinion ‘the financial statements do not give a true and fair view’ is an ‘adverse’ opinion.
■ That ‘provision should be made’, but has not, is a matter of disagreement that should be clearly stated as noncompliance
with IAS 36. The title of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets should be given in full.
■ The opinion should be headed ‘Disagreement on Accounting Policies – Inappropriate Accounting Method – Adverse
Opinion’.
1 ISA 250 does not specify with whom agreement should be reached but presumably with those charged with corporate governance (e.g audit committee or
2 other supervisory board).
20
6D–INTBA
Paper 3.1INT
Content
■ It is appropriate that the opinion paragraph should refer to the note(s) in the financial statements where the matter
giving rise to the modification is more fully explained. However, this is not an excuse for the audit opinion being
‘light’ on detail. For example, the reason for impairment could be summarised in the auditor’s report.
■ The effects have not been quantified, but they should be quantifiable. The maximum possible loss would be the
carrying amount of the non-current assets identified as impaired.
■ It is not clear why the directors have been ‘unable to quantify the amounts’. Since impairments should be
quantifiable any ‘inability’ suggest a limitation in scope of the audit, in which case the opinion should be disclaimed
(or ‘except for’) on grounds of lack of evidence rather than disagreement.
■ The wording is confusing. ‘Failure to provide’ suggests disagreement. However, there must be sufficient evidence
to support any disagreement. Although the directors cannot quantify the amounts it seems the auditors must have
been able to (estimate at least) in order to form. an opinion that the amounts involved are sufficiently material to
warrant a qualification.
■ The first paragraph refers to ‘non-current assets’. The second paragraph specifies ‘tangible and intangible assets’.
There is no explanation why or how both tangible and intangible assets are impaired.
■ The first paragraph refers to ‘profit or loss’ and the second and third paragraphs to ‘loss’. It may be clearer if the
first paragraph were to refer to recognition in the income statement.
■ It is not clear why the failure to recognise impairment warrants an adverse opinion rather than ‘except for’. The
effects of non-compliance with IAS 36 are to overstate the carrying amount(s) of non-current assets (that can be
specified) and to understate the loss. The matter does not appear to be pervasive and so an adverse opinion looks
unsuitable as the financial statements as a whole are not incomplete or misleading. A loss is already being reported
so it is not that a reported profit would be turned into a loss (which is sometimes judged to be ‘pervasive’).
Prior year
■ As the 2005 auditor’s report, as previously issued, included an adverse opinion and the matter that gave rise to
the modification:
– is unresolved; and
– results in a modification of the 2006 auditor’s report,
the 2006 auditor’s report should also be modified regarding the corresponding figures (ISA 710 Comparatives).
■ The 2006 auditor’s report does not refer to the prior period modification nor highlight that the matter resulting in
the current period modification is not new. For example, the report could say ‘As previously reported and as more
fully explained in notes ….’ and state ‘increase the loss by $x (2005 – $y)’.