2021年全国ACCA考试准考证打印时间考前两周

(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)’.

(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).

(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.