号外！号外！江西省2020年ACCA考试准考证可以打印啦！这些打印流程你知道吗？

正确答案：B

A is incorrect as internal auditors are not required to be members of any professional body. C is incorrect as external auditors report to shareholders rather than those charged with governance. D is incorrect as internal auditors can be independent of the company, if, for example, the internal audit function has been outsourced.

正确答案：
(b) Audit work on carrying amounts
Tutorial note: This part concerns audit work to be undertaken in respect of non-current tangible assets (the production
animals in the goat herd and certain equipment) and inventories (the for-sale animals and cheese). One of the ‘tests’ for
assessing whether or not a point is worthy of a mark will be whether or not the asset to which it relates is apparent. Points
which are so vague that they could apply to ANY non-current asset for ANY entity, rather than those of GVF are unlikely to
attract many marks, if any, at this level.
(i) Goat herd
■ Physical inspection of the number and condition of animals in the herd and confirming, on a test basis, that they
are tagged (or otherwise ‘branded’ as being owned by GVF).
■ Tests of controls on management’s system of identifying and distinguishing held-for-sale animals (inventory) from
the production herd (depreciable non-current assets).
■ Comparison of GVF’s depreciation policies (including useful lives, depreciation methods and residual values) with
those used by other farming entities.
■ ‘Proof in total’, or other reasonableness check, of the depreciation charge for the herd for the year.
■ Observing test counts or total counts of animals held for sale.
■ Comparing carrying amounts of the kids, according to their weight and age, as at 30 September 2005 with their
market values. (These may approximate to actual invoiced selling prices obtained by GVF.)
Tutorial note: Market value of the production herd could also be compared with its carrying amount to assess possible
impairment. However, if value in use appears to be less than market value the herd should be sold rather than used
for production.

正确答案：
(b) There are a number of potential problems which the directors of HFG need to recognise. These are as follows:
(i) There needs to exist a sufficient incentive for SFO to share their information with HFG as the success of any
benchmarking programme is dependent upon obtaining accurate information about the comparator organisation. This is
not an easy task to accomplish, as many organisations are reluctant to reveal confidential information to competitors.
The directors of HFG must be able to convince the directors of SFO that entering into a benchmarking arrangement is a
potential ‘win-win situation’.
(ii) The value of the exercise must be sufficient to justify the cost involved. Also, it is inevitable that behavioural issues will
need to be addressed in any benchmarking programme. Management should give priority to the need to communicate
the reasons for undertaking a programme of benchmarking in order to gain the full co-operation of its personnel whilst
reducing the potential level of resistance to change.
(iii) Management need to handle the ethical implications relating to the introduction of benchmarking in a sensitive manner
and should endeavour, insofar as possible, to provide reassurance to employees that their status, remuneration and
working conditions will not suffer as a consequence of the introduction of any benchmarking initiatives.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Cost of investment on acquisition of Dylan Co
Matters to consider
According to the schedule provided by the client, the cost of investment comprises three elements. One matter to
consider is whether the cost of investment is complete.
It appears that no legal or professional fees have been included in the cost of investment (unless included within the
heading ‘cash consideration’). Directly attributable costs should be included per IFRS 3 Business Combinations, and
there is a risk that these costs may be expensed in error, leading to understatement of the investment.
The cash consideration of $2·5 million is the least problematical component. The only matter to consider is whether the
cash has actually been paid. Given that Dylan Co was acquired in the last month of the financial year it is possible that
the amount had not been paid before the year end, in which case the amount should be recognised as a current liability
on the statement of financial position (balance sheet). However, this seems unlikely given that normally control of an
acquired company only passes to the acquirer on cash payment.
IFRS 3 states that the cost of investment should be recognised at fair value, which means that deferred consideration
should be discounted to present value at the date of acquisition. If the consideration payable on 31 January 2009 has
not been discounted, the cost of investment, and the corresponding liability, will be overstated. It is possible that the
impact of discounting the $1·5 million payable one year after acquisition would be immaterial to the financial
statements, in which case it would be acceptable to leave the consideration at face value within the cost of investment.
Contingent consideration should be accrued if it is probable to be paid. Here the amount is payable if revenue growth
targets are achieved over the next four years. The auditor must therefore assess the probability of the targets being
achieved, using forecasts and projections of Maxwell Co’s revenue. Such information is inherently subjective, and could
have been manipulated, if prepared by the vendor of Maxwell Co, in order to secure the deal and maximise
consideration. Here it will be crucial to be sceptical when reviewing the forecasts, and the assumptions underlying the
data. The management of Rosie Co should have reached their own opinion on the probability of paying the contingent
consideration, but they may have relied heavily on information provided at the time of the acquisition.
Audit evidence
– Agreement of the monetary value and payment dates of the consideration per the client schedule to legal
documentation signed by vendor and acquirer.
– Agreement of $2·5 million paid to Rosie Co’s bank statement and cash book prior to year end. If payment occurs
after year end confirm that a current liability is recognised on the individual company and consolidated statement
of financial position (balance sheet).
– Board minutes approving the payment.
– Recomputation of discounting calculations applied to deferred and contingent consideration.
– Agreement that the discount rate used is pre-tax, and reflects current market assessment of the time value of money
(e.g. by comparison to Rosie Co’s weighted average cost of capital).
– Revenue and profit projections for the period until January 2012, checked for arithmetic accuracy.
– A review of assumptions used in the projections, and agreement that the assumptions are comparable with the
auditor’s understanding of Dylan Co’s business.
Tutorial note: As the scenario states that Chien & Co has audited Dylan Co for several years, it is reasonable to rely on
their cumulative knowledge and understanding of the business in auditing the revenue projections.