ACCA考试2021报名注册常见问题分享

正确答案：D

正确答案：
(b) Implications for the auditor’s report
(i) Corruption of perpetual inventory records
■ The loss of data (of physical inventory quantities at the balance sheet date) gives rise to a limitation on scope.
Tutorial note: It is the records of the asset that have been destroyed – not the physical asset.
■ The systems failure in October 2005 is clearly a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10). If it is material
(such that non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions of users) Jinack should disclose:
– the nature of the event (i.e. systems failure); and
– an estimate of its financial effect (i.e. the cost of disruption and reconstruction of data to the extent that it is
not covered by insurance).
Tutorial note: The event has no financial effect on the realisability of inventory, only on its measurement for the
purpose of reporting it in the financial statements.
■ If material this disclosure could be made in the context of explaining how inventory has been estimated at
30 September 2005 (see later). If such disclosure, that the auditor considers to be necessary, is not made, the
audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement (over lack of disclosure).
Tutorial note: Such qualifications are extremely rare since management should be persuaded to make necessary
disclosure in the notes to the financial statements rather than have users’ attention drawn to the matter through
a qualification of the audit opinion.
■ The limitation on scope of the auditor’s work has been imposed by circumstances. Jinack’s accounting records
(for inventory) are inadequate (non-existent) for the auditor to perform. tests on them.
■ An alternative procedure to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence of inventory quantities at a year end is
subsequent count and ‘rollback’. However, the extent of ‘roll back’ testing is limited as records are still under
reconstruction.
■ The auditor may be able to obtain sufficient evidence that there is no material misstatement through a combination
of procedures:
– testing management’s controls over counting inventory after the balance sheet date and recording inventory
movements (e.g. sales and goods received);
– reperforming the reconstruction for significant items on a sample basis;
– analytical procedures such as a review of profit margins by inventory category.
■ ‘An extensive range of inventory’ is clearly material. The matter (i.e. systems failure) is not however pervasive, as
only inventory is affected.
■ Unless the reconstruction is substantially completed (i.e. inventory items not accounted for are insignificant) the
auditor cannot determine what adjustment, if any, might be determined to be necessary. The auditor’s report
should then be modified, ‘except for’, limitation on scope.
■ However, if sufficient evidence is obtained the auditor’s report should be unmodified.
■ An ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph would not be appropriate because this matter is not one of significant
uncertainty.
Tutorial note: An uncertainty in this context is a matter whose outcome depends on future actions or events not
under the direct control of Jinack.
2006
■ If the 2005 auditor’s report is qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of limitation on scope there are two possibilities for
the inventory figure as at 30 September 2005 determined on completion of the reconstruction exercise:
(1) it is not materially different from the inventory figure reported; or
(2) it is materially different.
■ In (1), with the limitation now removed, the need for qualification is removed and the 2006 auditor’s report would
be unmodified (in respect of this matter).
■ In (2) the opening position should be restated and the comparatives adjusted in accordance with IAS 8 ‘Accounting
Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’. The 2006 auditor’s report would again be unmodified.
Tutorial note: If the error was not corrected in accordance with IAS 8 it would be a different matter and the
auditor’s report would be modified (‘except for’ qualification) disagreement on accounting treatment.

正确答案：
(d) Stuart is not making use of his nil rate band, as all assets are transferred, exempt from inheritance tax (IHT), to Rebecca (as
spouse) on death. He should consider altering his will to transfer an amount equivalent to the nil rate band to his son, Sam.
If Stuart dies before altering his will, Rebecca can elect to make a Deed of Variation in favour of Sam instead. This will have
the same effect as the above.
Care should be taken in determining which assets are subject to this legacy. The Omega plc shares should not be transferred
to Sam as they currently attract 50% BPR. Instead, assets not subject to any reliefs (such as the insurance payout or cash
deposits) should be used instead. By doing this, IHT of ￡105,200 (￡263,000 x 40%) could be saved on the ultimate death
of Rebecca.
It is too late for Stuart to make use of potentially exempt transfers (PETs) as no relief is obtained until three years have passed,
and full relief only occurs seven years after making the gifts. The same would also apply to Rebecca if she were to die on 1
March 2008. However, as she is currently in good health, she may decide to make lifetime gifts, although she should also
not gift the Omega plc shares for the reasons stated above as any gift other than of the entire holding will result in the loss
of BPR on the remainder.
Both individuals should make use of their annual exemptions (￡3,000 per person per year). The annual exemptions not used
up in the previous year can be used in this current year. This would give a saving of ￡2,400 each (3,000 x 2 x 40%).
Exemptions for items such as small gifts (￡250 per donee per year) are also available.
Gifts out of normal income should also be considered. After making such gifts, the individual should be left with sufficient
income to maintain their usual standard of living. To obtain the exemption, it is usually necessary to demonstrate general
evidence of a prior commitment to make the gifts, or a settled pattern of expenditure.
While there are no details of income, both Stuart and Rebecca are wealthy in their own right, and are likely to earn reasonable
sums from their investments. They should therefore be able to satisfy the conditions on that basis.
If Rebecca were to make substantial lifetime gifts, the donees would be advised to consider taking out insurance policies on
Rebecca’s life to cover the potential tax liabilities that may arise on any PETs in the event of her early death.
Tutorial note: the answer has assumed that the shares could be bought for ￡2·10, their value for IHT.