ACCA2019-2020MA（F2）考试大纲，速看！

正确答案：
(b) International Standards on Auditing (ISAs)
The groundwork for an international set of auditing standards began in 1969 with a number of reports published by the
Accountants International Study Group that compared the situation in Canada, the UK, and US. The establishment of the
International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), in 1973, generated calls for a similar body to be set up for auditing.
In the late 1970s the Council of International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) created the International Auditing Practices
Committee (IAPC) as a standing committee of the IFAC Council. (Subsequently the IFAC Board.)
Tutorial note: The IFAC Council was renamed the IFAC Board in May 2000.
The first ISA was issued in 1991. The codified core set released in 1994, which has remained the series to the present day,
has been increasingly accepted by national standard setters and auditors involved in global reporting and cross-border
financing transactions.
In July 2001, IFAC sought comment on the role of IASC3 and the future of ISAs. As a result of the review, in 2002, the IAPC
was renamed the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). IAASB has made available, on its website,
the full text of ISAs since 2003.
Further, the growth of non-audit assurance services has led to the development of a new framework (‘The International
Framework for Assurance Engagements’) effective for assurance reports issued on or after 1 January 2005.
The hope that the take up of ISAs should follow the lead set by International Accounting Standards (IASs), following their
endorsement by IOSCO (the International Organization of Securities Commissions), has been expressed by many professional
bodies including ACCA and FEE (the Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens). FEE has been leading the debate on
the future of ISAs in Europe since 2001.
ISAs provide for the international harmonisation of national standards and the adoption of a global framework approach. As
a member of CCAB (the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies) ACCA is committed to consulting its members on
the adoption of ISAs in the UK, and working with FEE, the European Commission (EC) and others.
In response to the move in the profession, away from the ‘traditional audit risk’ model, to a business risk model, IAASB issued
ISA 315 ‘Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement,’ ISA 330 ‘The
Auditor’s Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks’ and ISA 500 (Revised) ‘Audit Evidence’. These standards (and
conforming amendments) are effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2004.
That is, they will be applicable to financial statements for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005 that in the European
Economic Area (EEA) and elsewhere will be adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) for the first time.
The adoption of ISAs has been welcomed by professional bodies as providing a robust approach to risk, fraud and quality
control that is particularly important in the light of recent events (Enron/Worldcom/Parmalat). For example, ISA 315 provides
additional guidance on the assessment of risks of material misstatement at the financial statement level and at the assertion
level.
Tutorial note: Recent developments could validly be illustrated with reference to other standards. For example, ISA 240
(Revised) ‘The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements’ that became effective from
1 January 2005 has raised auditor awareness of earnings management and the greater need for professional skepticism.
ISA 700 (Revised) ‘The Independent Auditor’s Report on a Complete Set of General Purpose Financial Statements’ is effective
for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2005. This proposed significant changes to
the auditor’s report to help promote consistency in reporting practices worldwide.
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) is in discussion with IAASB about the possible
endorsement of ISAs (similar to its endorsement of IASs).
Practicing professionals must keep themselves up to date on auditing standards if they are to provide quality audits. Failure
to do so could result in negligence claims and/or disciplinary action (e.g. by ACCA’s disciplinary committee). A survey by FEE
has demonstrated that the European accountancy bodies broadly comply with ISAs. However, an earlier survey4 of IFAC
member bodies showed that 14% had some significant differences (usually relating to reporting). IFAC needs to require its
member bodies to act rather than merely encourage implementation. A set of global ethical requirements will help improve
the implementation of ISAs as well as reduce the expectation gap in performing audits of financial statements.

正确答案：

(a) Objectives and scope

From the perspective of the ‘traffic lite’ project, the change in mayor has led to an immediate change in the objectives driving the project. This illustrates how public sector projects are susceptible to sudden external environmental changes outside their control. The project initially proposed to reduce traffic congestion by making traffic lights sensitive to traffic flow. It was suggested that this would improve journey times for all vehicles using the roads of Brighttown. However, the incoming mayor now wishes to reduce traffic congestion by attracting car users onto public transport. Consequently she wants to develop a traffic light system which will give priority to buses. This should ensure that buses run on time. The project is no longer concerned with reducing journey times for all users. Indeed, congestion for private cars may get worse and this could further encourage car users to switch to public transport.

An important first step would be to confirm that the new mayor wishes to be the project sponsor for the project, because the project has lost its sponsor, the former mayor. The project scope also needs to be reviewed. The initial project was essentially a self-contained technical project aimed at producing a system which reduced queuing traffic. The revised proposal has much wider political scope and is concerned with discouraging car use and improving public bus services. Thus there are also proposals to increase car parking charges, to reduce the number of car park spaces (by selling off certain car parks for housing development) and to increase the frequency, quality and punctuality of buses. The project scope appears to have been widened considerably, although this will have to be confirmed with the new project sponsor.

Only once the scope of the revised project been agreed can revised project objectives be agreed and a new project plan developed, allocating the resources available to the project to the tasks required to complete the project. It is at this stage that the project manager will be able to work out if the proposed delivery date (a project constraint) is still manageable. If it is not, then some kind of agreement will have to be forged with the project sponsor. This may be to reduce the scope of the project, add more resources, or some combination of the two.

(b) Cost benefit

The re-defined project will have much more tangible effects than its predecessor and these could be classified using the standard approach suggested in the scenario. Benefits would include:

– One-off financial benefit from selling certain car parks

– this appears to be a predictable financial benefit of $325,000 which can be confidently included in a cost/benefit analysis.

– Increased income from public bus use – this appears to be a measurable benefit, in that it is an aspect of performance which can be measured (for example, bus fares collected per day), but it is not possible to estimate how much income will actually increase until the project is completed. – Increased income from car parks

– this appears to be a quantifiable benefit if the assumption is made that usage of the car parks will stay at 95%. There may indeed be sufficient confidence to define it as a financial benefit. Car park places will be reduced from 1,000 to 800, but the increase in fees will compensate for this reduction in capacity. Current expected daily income is 1,000 x $3 x 0·95 = $2,850. Future expected income will be 800 x $4 x 0·95 = $3,040.

– Improved punctuality of buses – this will again be a measurable benefit. It will be defined in terms of a Service Level promised to the residents of Brighttown. Improved punctuality might also help tempt a number of vehicle users to use public transport instead.

– Reduced emissions – buses are more energy efficient and emit less carbon dioxide than the conventional vehicles used by most of the inhabitants of Brighttown. This benefit should again be measurable (but non-financial) and should benefit the whole of the town, not just areas around traffic lights.

– Improved perception of the town – the incoming mayor believes that her policy will help attract green consumers and green companies to the town. Difficulties in classifying what is meant by these terms makes this likely to be an observable benefit, where a group, such as the Go Green team, established by the council itself can decide (based on their judgement) whether the benefit has been realised or not.

The costs of implementing the project will also have to be re-assessed. These costs will now include:

– The cost of purchasing more buses to meet the increased demand and frequency of service.

– The operational costs of running more buses, including salary costs of more bus drivers.

– Costs associated with the disposal of car parks.

– Costs associated with slowing down drivers (both economic and emotional).

The technical implementation requirements of the project will also change and this is almost certain to have cost implications because a solution will have to be developed which allows buses to be prioritised. A feasibility study will have to be commissioned to examine whether such a solution is technically feasible and, if it is, the costs of the solution will have to be estimated and entered into the cost-benefit analysis.

(c) A stakeholder grid (Mendelow) provides a framework for understanding how project team members should communicate with each stakeholder or stakeholder group. The grid itself has two axes. One axis is concerned with the power or influence of the stakeholder in this particular project. The other axis is concerned with the stakeholder’s interest in the project.

The incoming mayor: High power and high interest. The mayor is a key player in the project and should be carefully and actively managed throughout. The mayor is currently enthusiastic about the project and this enthusiasm has to be sustained. As the likely project sponsor, it will be the mayor’s responsibility to promote the project internally and to make resources available to it. It will also be up to her to ensure that the promised business benefits are actually delivered. However, she is also the person who can cancel the project at any time.

OfRoad – a government agency: OfRoad were critical of the previous mayor’s justification for the project. They felt that the business case was solely based on intangible benefits and lacked credibility. It is likely that they will be more supportive of the revised proposals for two reasons. Firstly, the proposal uses the classification of benefits which it has suggested. Secondly, the proposal includes tangible benefits which can confidently be included in a cost-benefit analysis. OfRoad is likely to have high power (because it can intervene in local transport decisions) but relatively low interest in this particular project as the town appears to be following its guidelines. An appropriate management strategy would be to keep watch and monitor the situation, making sure that nothing happens on the project which would cause the agency to take a sudden interest in it.

The private motorist of Brighttown: Most of these motorists will have a high interest in the project, because it impacts them directly; but, individually, they have very little power. Their chance to influence policy has just passed, and mayoral elections are not due for another five years. The suggested stakeholder management approach here is to keep them informed. However, their response will have to be monitored. If they organise themselves and band together as a group, they might be able to stage disruptive actions which might raise their power and have an impact on the project. This makes the point that stakeholder management is a continual process, as stakeholders may take up different positions in the grid as they organise themselves or as the project progresses.

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：
(b) There are several issues which have to be addressed if an international conceptual framework is to be successfully developed.
These are:
(i) Objectives
Agreement will be required as to whether financial statements are to be produced for shareholders or a wide range of
users and whether decision usefulness is the key criteria or stewardship. Additionally there is the question of whether
the objective is to provide information in making credit and investment decisions.
(ii) Qualitative Characteristics
The qualities to be sought in making decisions about financial reporting need to be determined. The decision usefulness
of financial reports is determined by these characteristics. There are issues concerning the trade-offs between relevance
and reliability. An example of this concerns the use of fair values and historical costs. It has been argued that historical
costs are more reliable although not as relevant as fair values. Additionally there is a conflict between neutrality and the
traditions of prudence or conservatism. These characteristics are constrained by materiality and benefits that justify
costs.
(iii) Definitions of the elements of financial statements
The principles behind the definition of the elements need agreement. There are issues concerning whether ‘control’
should be included in the definition of an asset or become part of the recognition criteria. Also the definition of ‘control’
is an issue particularly with financial instruments. For example, does the holder of a call option ‘control’ the underlying
asset? Some of the IASB’s standards contravene its own conceptual framework. IFRS3 requires the capitalisation of
goodwill as an asset despite the fact that it can be argued that goodwill does not meet the definition of an asset in the
Framework. IAS12 requires the recognition of deferred tax liabilities that do not meet the liability definition. Similarly
equity and liabilities need to be capable of being clearly distinguished. Certain financial instruments could either be
liabilities or equity. For example obligations settled in shares.
(iv) Recognition and De-recognition
The principles of recognition and de-recognition of assets and liabilities need reviewing. Most frameworks have
recognition criteria, but there are issues over the timing of recognition. For example, should an asset be recognised when
a value can be placed on it or when a cost has been incurred? If an asset or liability does not meet recognition criteria
when acquired or incurred, what subsequent event causes the asset or liability to be recognised? Most frameworks do
not discuss de-recognition. (The IASB’s Framework does not discuss the issue.) It can be argued that an item should be
de-recognised when it does not meet the recognition criteria, but financial instruments standards (IAS39) require other
factors to occur before financial assets can be de-recognised. Different attributes should be considered such as legal
ownership, control, risks or rewards.
(v) Measurement
More detailed discussion of the use of measurement concepts, such as historical cost, fair value, current cost, etc are
required and also more guidance on measurement techniques. Measurement concepts should address initial
measurement and subsequent measurement in the form. of revaluations, impairment and depreciation which in turn
gives rise to issues about classification of gains or losses in income or in equity.
(vi) Reporting entity
Issues have arisen over what sorts of entities should issue financial statements, and which entities should be included
in consolidated financial statements. A question arises as to whether the legal entity or the economic unit should be the
reporting unit. Complex business arrangements raise issues over what entities should be consolidated and the basis
upon which entities are consolidated. For example, should the basis of consolidation be ‘control’ and what does ‘control’
mean?
(vii) Presentation and disclosure
Financial reporting should provide information that enables users to assess the amounts, timing and uncertainty of the
entity’s future cash flows, its assets, liabilities and equity. It should provide management explanations and the limitations
of the information in the reports. Discussions as to the boundaries of presentation and disclosure are required.