青海省考生注意：2020年ACCA国际会计师考试报名时间！

正确答案：

正确答案：
(ii) Apart from the fact that Alasdair can keep an eye on his tenant, the main advantages are twofold:
IHT: If the firm are the tenants, the property will be land and buildings used in a business carried on by a partnership
in which the donor is a partner. Thus, Alasdair will be able to claim business property relief (BPR) at a rate of 50%
so long as he remains a partner in the firm. However, this relief would not be available until Alasdair has owned
the property for at least two years from his firm taking up the tenancy.
CGT: As Alasdair is a partner in the firm using the building, it will also be a qualifying asset for the purposes of rollover
relief on any gains arising from the disposal of the property. Assuming that Alasdair acquires a replacement asset
which will be used in the trade, the gain on sale can be deferred against the tax base cost of the replacement asset.
In the event that rollover relief cannot be used, any gains on disposal will be subject to business asset taper relief.

正确答案：

(b) The new business
There are two tax advantages to operating the business as a partnership.
(i) Reduction in taxable income
If the new business is operated as a company, Cindy and Arthur would both be taxed at 40% on their salaries. In
addition, employer and employee national insurance contributions would be due on ￡105 (￡5,000 – ￡4,895) in respect
of each of them.
If the new business is operated as a partnership, the partners would have no taxable trading income because the
partnership has made a loss; any salaries paid to the partners would be appropriations of the profit or loss of the
business and not employment income. They would, however, each have to pay Class 2 national insurance contributions
of ￡2·10 each per week.
(ii) Earlier relief for trading losses
If the new business is operated as a company, its tax adjusted trading loss in the year ending 31 March 2008 would
be as follows:

正确答案：
4 Smith & Co
(a) Norman Co
The invoice is 12 months old and it appears doubtful whether the amount outstanding is recoverable. The fact that such an
old debt is unsettled indicates poor credit control by Smith & Co. Part of good practice management is to run a profitable,
cash generating audit function. The debt should not have been left outstanding for such a long period. It seems that little has
been done to secure payment since the file note was attached to the invoice in November 2007.
There is also a significant ethical issue raised. Overdue fees are a threat to objectivity and independence. Due to Norman Co
not yet paying for the 2007 year end audit, it could be perceived that the audit has been performed for free. Alternatively the
amount outstanding could be perceived as a loan to the client, creating a self-interest threat to independence.
The audit work for the year ended 28 February 2008 should not have been carried out without some investigation into the
unpaid invoice relating to the prior year audit. This also represents a self-interest threat – if fees are not collected before the
audit report is issued, an unmodified report could be seen as enhancing the prospect of securing payment. It seems that a
check has not been made to see if the prior year fee has been paid prior to the audit commencing.
It is also concerning that the audit report for the 2008 year end is about to be issued, but no invoice has been raised relating
to the work performed. To maximise cash inflow, the audit firm should invoice the client as soon as possible for work
performed.
Norman Co appears to be suffering financial distress. In this case there is a valid commercial reason why payment has not
been made – the client simply lacks cash. While this fact does not eliminate the problems noted above, it means that the
auditors can continue so long as adequate ethical safeguards are put in place, and after the monetary significance of the
amount outstanding has been evaluated.
It should also be considered whether Norman Co’s financial situation casts any doubt over the going concern of the company.
Continued cash flow problems are certainly a financial indicator of going concern problems, and if the company does not
resolve the cash flow problem then it may be unable to continue in operational existence.
Action to be taken:
– Discuss with the audit committee (if any) or those charged with governance of Norman Co:
The ethical problems raised by the non-payment of invoices, and a payment programme to secure cash payment in
stages if necessary, rather than demanding the total amount outstanding immediately.
– Notify the ethics partner of Smith & Co of the situation – the ethics partner should evaluate the ethical threat posed by
the situation and document the decision to continue to act for Norman Co.
– The documentation should include an evaluation of the monetary significance of the amount outstanding, as it will be
more difficult to justify the continuance of the audit appointment if the amount is significant.
– The ethics partner should ensure that a firm-wide policy is communicated to all audit managers requiring them to check
the payment of previous invoices before commencing new client work. This check should be documented.
– Consider an independent partner review of the working papers prepared for the 28 February 2008 audit.
– The audit working papers on going concern should be reviewed to ensure that sufficient evidence has been gathered to
support the audit opinion. Further procedures may be found to be necessary given the continued cash flow problems.
– Smith & Co have already acted to improve credit control by making a manager responsible for reviewing invoices and
monitoring subsequent cash collection. It is important that credit control procedures are quickly put into place to prevent
similar situations arising.