2021年上海ACCA考试准考证打印时间：考前两周

正确答案：

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).

正确答案：
(b) The use of residual income as a basis for the management incentive plan operated by NCL plc would have the following
advantages:
Divisional management would be more willing to accept a project with a positive residual income and this would contribute
to the improved performance of NCL plc. Also, the disincentive to accept a project with a positive residual income but a return
on investment regarded by divisional management as not being in their best interests would be removed, because divisional
management would be rewarded.
The use of annuity depreciation may improve performance appraisal by removing the effect of straight-line depreciation which
tends to distort project returns especially in the early years of a project’s life when invested capital remains relatively high due
to the constant depreciation charge. The residual income approach using annuity depreciation will only match the NPV if the
annual cashflows of a project are constant. Hence the method when applied to the North or South projects would produce
an NPV which does not exactly match that previously calculated. By way of contrast it is forecast that the East project will
have constant cashflows and in this instance the NPV and residual income based approach when discounted, will produce
the same result.

正确答案：
(b) Recruitment service
IFAC’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants does not prohibit firms from offering a recruitment service to client
companies. However several ethical problems could arise if the service were offered. The severity of these problems would
depend on the exact nature of the service provided, and the role of the person recruited into the client’s organisation.
Specific ethical threats could include:
Self-interest – clearly the motive for Becker & Co to offer this service is to generate income from audit clients, thereby creating
a financial self-interest threat. The amount received for the recruitment service depends on the magnitude of the salary of the
person employed. The more senior the person recruited, the higher their salary is likely to be, and therefore the higher the
fee to be paid to Becker & Co.
In addition, the firm could be tempted to advise positively on the recruitment of an individual merely to receive the relevant
recruitment fee, without properly considering the suitability of the person for the role.
Familiarity – when performing the audit, the auditors may be less likely to criticise or challenge the work performed by a
person they helped to recruit, as any significant problems discovered may make the recruitment appear ill-advised.
Management involvement – there is also a threat that the audit firm could be perceived to be making management decisions
by selecting employees. The firm could offer services such as reviewing the professional qualifications of a number of
applicants, and providing advice on the applicant’s suitability for the post. In addition the firm could draw up a shortlist of
candidates for interview, using criteria specified by the client. However in all cases, the final decision as to whom to hire must
be made by the client, as the audit firm should not make, or be perceived to be making, management decisions.
The threats discussed above would increase in significance if the recruitee took on a role in key management pertaining to
the finance function, such as finance director or financial controller. The threats would be less severe if the audit firm advised
on the recruitment of a junior member of the client’s finance function.
If these threats could not be reduced to a level less than clearly insignificant, then the recruitment service should not be
offered.
Commercial evaluation
The firm should consider whether there is likely to be much demand for the potential service before developing such a
resource. Some form. of market research is essential.
Offering this type of service represents a significant departure from normal audit services. The firm should consider whether
there is sufficient knowledge and expertise to offer a recruitment service. Ingrid Sharapova seems to have some experience,
but her skills may be out of date, and may not be specifically relevant to the recruitment of finance professionals. It may be
that considerable training and possibly the attainment of a new professional qualification relevant to recruitment may be
necessary for a credible service to be offered to clients.
If the recruitment service proved successful, then Ingrid could be faced with too much work as she is the only person with
relevant experience, and has no one to delegate to. If the firm decides to offer this service, then one other person should
receive appropriate training, to cover for Ingrid’s holidays and any sick leave, and to provide someone for Ingrid to delegate
to. The financial cost of such training should be considered.
Finally, Becker & Co should consider the potential damage to the firm’s reputation if the service offered is not of a high quality.
If the partners decide to pursue this business opportunity, they may wish to consider setting it up as a separate entity, so that
if the business fails or its reputation is questioned, the damage to Becker & Co would be minimised.