澳门考生报名的缴费方式有哪些？应当注意什么问题？

正确答案：
(ii) Job enlargement is often referred to as ‘horizontal job enlargement’ and is aimed at widening the content of jobs by increasing the number of operations in which the job holder is involved and is another method by which employees at Bailey’s might become more involved. It reduces the level of repetition and dullness by providing a horizontal extension to activity, reducing monotony and boredom inherent in the operations at Bailey’s.

正确答案：
6 REQUIREMENTS IN GROUP AUDITS
Tutorial note: The answer which follows is indicative of the range of points which might be made. Other relevant material will be
given suitable credit.
(a) Significant issues
Tutorial note: The objective of the IAASB’s project on the audit of group financial statements (‘group audits’) was to deal
with special considerations in group audits and, in particular, the involvement of other auditors. The re-exposure of ISA 600
(Revised and Redrafted) in March 2006 (following initial publication of a proposed revised ISA in December 2003 and an
exposure draft in March 2005) reflects the significance of the issues that the IAASB has sought to address.
Sole vs divided responsibility
The IAASB has concluded that the group auditor has sole responsibility for the group audit opinion. Thus the exposure drafts
eliminate the distinction between sole and divided responsibility. Therefore no reference to another auditor (e.g. of significant
components) should be made in the group auditor’s report. The practice of referring to another auditor may, arguably, be more
transparent to users of group financial statements. However, it may also mislead users to believe that the group auditor does
not have sole responsibility.
Definition of group auditor
The group auditor is the auditor who signs the auditor’s report on the group financial statements. The project has sought to
clarify whether, for example, an auditor from another office of the group engagement partner’s firm is a member of the group
engagement team or an ‘other auditor’.
‘Related’ vs ‘unrelated’ auditors
IAASB recognises that the nature, timing and extent of procedures performed by the group auditor, including the review of
the other auditor’s audit documentation, are affected by the group auditor’s relationship with the other audit. (For example,
if the other auditor operates under the quality control policies and procedures of the group auditor.) However, IAASB
acknowledges that a consistent distinction between ‘related’ and ‘unrelated’ auditors cannot be made due to the varying
structures of audit firms and their networks. Consequently, the only distinction that is made is between the ‘group’ and ‘other’
auditors.
Acceptance/continuance as group auditor
A group auditor should only accept or continue an engagement if sufficient appropriate evidence is expected to be obtained
on which to base the group audit opinion. Acceptance and continuance as group auditors therefore requires an assessment
of the risk of misstatement in components. IAASB has therefore proposed guidance on the benchmarks that might be used
in identifying significant components.
Access to information
IAASB has concluded that a group audit engagement should be refused (or resigned from) if the group engagement partner
concludes that it will not be possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the result of which would be a disclaimer.
However, if the group engagement partner is prohibited from refusing or resigning an engagement, the group audit opinion
must be disclaimed.
Aggregation of components
Sufficient appropriate audit evidence must be obtained in respect of components that are not individually significant (but
significant in aggregate). This requires that components be selected for audit procedures (e.g. on specified account balances).
Analytical procedures are required to be performed on components that are not selected. IAASB has therefore identified factors
to be considered in selecting components that are not individually significant.
Responsibilities of other auditors
Historically, other auditors, knowing the context in which their work will be used by the group auditor, have been required to
cooperate with the group auditor. However, the project did not address guidance for other auditors. Therefore, in providing
guidance on the group audit, the IAASB requires the group auditor to obtain an understanding of the requirements for other
auditors to cooperate with the group auditor and provide access to relevant documentation.

正确答案：
5 Dexter Co
(a) Responsibilities of management and auditors
Responsibilities
ISA 570 Going Concern provides a clear framework for the assessment of the going concern status of an entity, and
differentiates between the responsibilities of management and of auditors. Management should assess going concern in order
to decide on the most appropriate basis for the preparation of the financial statements. IAS 1 Presentation of Financial
Statements (revised) requires that where there is significant doubt over an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the
uncertainties should be disclosed in a note to the financial statements. Where the directors intend to cease trading, or have
no realistic alternative but to do so, the financial statements should be prepared on a ‘break up’ basis.
Thus the main focus of the management’s assessment of going concern is to ensure that relevant disclosures are made where
necessary, and that the correct basis of preparation is used.
The auditor’s responsibility is to consider the appropriateness of the management’s use of the going concern assumption in
the preparation of the financial statements and to consider whether there are material uncertainties about the entity’s ability
to continue as a going concern that need to be disclosed in a note.
The auditor should also consider the length of the time period that management have looked at in their assessment of going
concern.
The auditor will therefore need to come to an opinion as to the going concern status of an entity but the focus of the auditor’s
evaluation of going concern is to see whether they agree with the assessment made by the management. Therefore whether
they agree with the basis of preparation of the financial statements, or the inclusion in a note to the financial statements, as
required by IAS 1, of any material uncertainty.
Evaluation techniques
In carrying out the going concern assessment, management will evaluate a wide variety of indicators, including operational
and financial. An entity employing good principles of corporate governance should be carrying out such an assessment as
part of the on-going management of the business.
Auditors will use a similar assessment technique in order to come to their own opinion as to the going concern status of an
entity. They will carry out an operational review of the business in order to confirm business understanding, and will conduct
a financial review as part of analytical procedures. Thus both management and auditors will use similar business risk
assessment techniques to discover any threats to the going concern status of the business.
Auditors should not see going concern as a ‘completion issue’, but be alert to issues affecting going concern throughout the
audit. In the same way that management should continually be managing risk (therefore minimising going concern risk),
auditors should be continually be alert to going concern problems throughout the duration of the audit.
However, one difference is that when going concern problems are discovered, the auditor is required by IAS 570 to carry out
additional procedures. Examples of such procedures would include:
– Analysing and discussing cash flow, profit and other relevant forecasts with management
– Analysing and discussing the entity’s latest available interim financial statements
– Reviewing events after the period end to identify those that either mitigate or otherwise affect the entity’s ability to
continue as a going concern, and
– Reading minutes of meetings of shareholders, those charged with governance and relevant committees for reference to
financing difficulties.
Management are not explicitly required to gather specific evidence about going concern, but as part of good governance would
be likely to investigate and react to problems discovered.