2021年新疆ACCA考试准考证打印时间：考前两周

正确答案：
2 For the complex, modern business, the view that the single objective of business is to make a profit is regarded by many writers as simplistic. Peter Drucker has argued that for a business to be successful, it must address a number of objectives.
Drucker was one of the first writers to identify the dangers of the single objective of profit maximisation. Concentrating on a single objective (invariably profit) is not only unproductive but potentially harmful to the organisation and can endanger the survival of the business and seriously undermine its future. He argues that business organisations have in fact eight objectives, all of which must be addressed concurrently. These eight objectives are particularly relevant to management, bringing together as they do the need to address all the issues with which the organisation is concerned.
Market standing is the need to identify and maintain market share and to ensure the development of new products to maintain share. Without market standing, no organisation can succeed.
Innovation is the need to develop and find new products and processes; no business can survive on providing the same product or service over the long term. Innovation is fundamental to understanding growth; organisations grow by developing innovative differences to their competitors.
Productivity and ‘contributed value’ recognises the need for efficiency and the efficient use of business resources.
Physical and financial resources is a recognition of the need to use the correct and appropriate financial resources.
Profitability. The word ‘profit’ does not appear, but ‘profitability’. Here there are three important determinants, profitability as a measure of effectiveness (many businesses make a profit which in fact is a poor return on the effort produced), the need for profit so that the business can be self-financing and the need to attract new capital.
Manager performance and development is the explicit recognition that the business requires objectives and that management activity can be linked directly to those objectives.
Worker performance and attitude is recognition that it is vital to measure the performance of the workforce by such means as labour turnover. However, worker attitude is more difficult to measure, but should be attempted.
Public responsibility has become an issue in the twenty-first century. Any business needs to be aware that it is a part of the community within which it operates and is therefore part of a wider social system.

正确答案：
(c) Ban on emptying waste water
(i) Matter
■ $0·9m provision for upgrading the process represents 45% PBT and is very material. This provision is also
material to the balance sheet (2·7% of total assets).
■ The provision for penalties is immaterial (2·2% PBT and 0·1% total assets).
■ The ban is an adjusting post balance sheet event in respect of the penalties (IAS 10). It provides evidence that at
the balance sheet date Keffler was in contravention of local government standards. Therefore it is correct (in
accordance with IAS 37) that a provision has been made for the penalties. As the matter is not material inclusion
in ‘other provisions’ is appropriate.
■ However, even if Keffler has a legal obligation to meet minimum standards, there is no obligation for upgrading the
purifying process at 31 March 2006 and the $0·9m provision should be written back.
■ If the provision for upgrading is not written back the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ (disagreement).
■ Keffler does not even have a contingent liability for upgrading the process because there is no present obligation to
do so. The obligation is to stop emptying unclean water into the river. Nor is there a possible obligation whose
existence will be confirmed by an uncertain future event not wholly within Keffler’s control.
Tutorial note: Consider that Keffler has alternatives wholly within its control. For example, it could ignore the ban
and incur fines, or relocate/close this particular plant/operation or perhaps dispose of the water by alternative
means.
■ The need for a technological upgrade may be an indicator of impairment. Management should have carried out
an impairment test on the carrying value of the water purifying process and recognised any impairment loss in the
profit for the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Management’s intention to upgrade the process is more appropriate to an environmental responsibility report (if
any).
■ Whether there is any other information in documents containing financial statements.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Penalty notices of fines received to confirm amounts and period/dates covered.
■ After-date payment of fines agreed to the cash book.
■ A copy of the ban and any supporting report on the local government’s findings.
■ Minutes of board meetings at which the ban was discussed confirming management’s intentions (e.g. to upgrade
the process).
Tutorial note: This may be disclosed in the directors’ report and/or as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event.
■ Any tenders received/costings for upgrading.
Tutorial note: This will be relevant if, for example, capital commitment authorised (by the board) but not
contracted for at the year end are disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.
■ Physical inspection of the emptying point at the river to confirm that Keffler is not still emptying waste water into
it (unless the upgrading has taken place).
Tutorial note: Thereby incurring further penalties.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Currently there are many rules on how gains and losses on tangible non current assets should be reported and these
have traditionally varied from country to country. The main issues revolve around the reporting of depreciation,
disposal/revaluation gains and losses, and impairment losses. The reporting of such elements should take into account
whether the tangible non current assets have been revalued or held at historical cost. The problem facing standard
setters is where to report such gains and losses.The question is whether they should be reported as part of operating
activities or as ‘other gains and losses’.
Holding gains arising on the sale of tangible non current assets could be reported separately from operating results so
that the latter is not obscured by an asset realisation that reflects more a change in market prices than any increase in
the operating activity of the entity. Other changes in the carrying amounts of tangible non current assets will be reported
as part of the operating results. For example, the depreciation charge tries to reflect the consumption of the asset by the
entity and as such is not a holding loss. There may be cases where the depreciation charge does not reflect the
consumption of economic benefits. For example, the pattern and rate of depreciation could have been misjudged
because the asset’s useful life has been assessed incorrectly. In this case, when an asset is sold any excess or shortfall
of depreciation may need to be dealt with in the operating result.
Impairment is another factor to consider in reporting gains and losses on tangible non current assets. Impairment is
effectively accelerated depreciation. Impairment arises when the carrying amount of the asset is above its recoverable
amount. It follows therefore that any impairment loss should be reported as part of the operating result. Any losses on
disposal, to the extent that they represent impairment, could therefore be reported as part of the operating results. Any
losses which represent holding losses could be reported in ‘other gains and losses’. The difficulty will be differentiating
between holding losses and impairment losses. There will have to be clear and concise definitions of these terms or it
could lead to abuse by companies in their quest to maximise operating profits.
A distinction should be made between gains and losses arising on tangible non current assets as a result of revaluations
and those arising on disposal. The nature of the gain or loss is essentially the same although the timing and certainty
of the gain/loss is different. Therefore revaluation gains/losses may be reported in the ‘other gains and losses’ section.
Where an asset has been revalued, any loss on disposal that represents an impairment would be charged to operating
results and any remaining loss reported in ‘other gains and losses’.
Essentially, gains and losses should be reported on the basis of the characteristics of the gains and losses themselves.
Gains and losses with similar characteristics should be reported together thus helping the comparability of financial
performance nationally and internationally.

正确答案：
(c) A joint audit is when two or more audit firms are jointly responsible for giving the audit opinion. This is very common in a
group situation where the principal auditor is appointed jointly with the auditor of a subsidiary to provide a joint opinion on
the subsidiary’s financial statements. There are several advantages and disadvantages in a joint audit being performed.
Advantages
It can be beneficial in terms of audit efficiency for a joint audit to be conducted, especially in the case of a new subsidiary.
In this case, Lead & Co will have built up an understanding of Maxwell Co’s business, systems and controls, and financial
statement issues. It will be time efficient for the two firms of auditors to work together in order for Chien & Co to build up
knowledge of the new subsidiary. This is a key issue, as Chien & Co need to acquire a thorough understanding of the
subsidiary in order to assess any risks inherent in the company which could impact on the overall assessment of risk within
the group. Lead & Co will be able to provide a good insight into the company, and advise Chien & Co of the key risk areas
they have previously identified.
On the practical side, it seems that Maxwell Co is a significant addition to the group, as it is expected to increase operating
facilities by 40%. If Chien & Co were appointed as sole auditors to Maxwell Co it may be difficult for the audit firm to provide
adequate resources to conduct the audit at the same time as auditing the other group companies. A joint audit will allow
sufficient resources to be allocated to the audit of Maxwell Co, assuring the quality of the opinion provided.
If there is a tight deadline, as is common with the audit of subsidiaries, which should be completed before the group audit
commences, then having access to two firms’ resources should enable the audit to be completed in good time.
The audit should also benefit from an improvement in quality. The two audit firms may have different points of view, and
would be able to discuss contentious issues throughout the audit process. In particular, the newly appointed audit team will
have a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and be able to offer new insight to matters identified. It should be easier to challenge management
and therefore ensure that the auditors’ position is taken seriously.
Tutorial note: Candidates may have referred to the recent debate over whether joint audits increase competition in the
profession. In particular, joint audits have been proposed as a way for ‘mid tier’ audit firms to break into the market of
auditing large companies and groups, which at the moment is monopolised by the ‘Big 4’. Although this does not answer
the specific question set, credit will be awarded for demonstration of awareness of this topical issue.
Disadvantages
For the client, it is likely to be more expensive to engage two audit firms than to have the audit opinion provided by one firm.
From a cost/benefit point of view there is clearly no point in paying twice for one opinion to be provided. Despite the audit
workload being shared, both firms will have a high cost for being involved in the audit in terms of senior manager and partner
time. These costs will be passed on to the client within the audit fee.
The two audit firms may use very different audit approaches and terminology. This could make it difficult for the audit firms
to work closely together, negating some of the efficiency and cost benefits discussed above. Problems could arise in deciding
which firm’s method to use, for example, to calculate materiality, design and pick samples for audit procedures, or evaluate
controls within the accounting system. It may be impossible to reconcile two different methods and one firm’s methods may
end up dominating the audit process, which then eliminates the benefit of a joint audit being conducted. It could be time
consuming to develop a ‘joint’ audit approach, based on elements of each of the two firms’ methodologies, time which
obviously would not have been spent if a single firm was providing the audit.
There may be problems for the two audit firms to work together harmoniously. Lead & Co may feel that ultimately they will
be replaced by Chien & Co as audit provider, and therefore could be unwilling to offer assistance and help.
Potentially, problems could arise in terms of liability. In the event of litigation, because both firms have provided the audit
opinion, it follows that the firms would be jointly liable. The firms could blame each other for any negligence which was
discovered, making the litigation process more complex than if a single audit firm had provided the opinion. However, it could
be argued that joint liability is not necessarily a drawback, as the firms should both be covered by professional indemnity
insurance.