山西省2020年ACCA国际会计师报名入口及报名流程~

正确答案：
(b) Late filing of VAT returns
The late filing of two or more VAT returns within the period of one year will give rise to a default surcharge. This occurs when
either
– The return is late and/or
– The payment is late.
Customs & Excise will serve a surcharge liability notice on the taxpayer when a single return is filed late and/or the VAT due
is paid late. The surcharge period will run from the date of notice to the anniversary of the quarter end of the period in which
the trader is in default.
Any further defaults within the surcharge period will extend the surcharge period.
If there is a late payment of VAT in the surcharge period, a surcharge will be levied at the rate of 2% on the first occasion,
rising progressively to a maximum of 15% if there are several defaults. One complete year of correct compliance is necessary
to escape the default surcharge regime.
For Flop Ltd, the surcharge period originally ran to 31 December 2005 but was extended to 31 March 2006 as the second
return is late. This could be extended again if the June return is late. The second default (31 March return) will give rise to
a 2% surcharge, based on the tax paid late of ￡24,000. This gives a surcharge of ￡480. This exceeds the de minimus level
of ￡400, so will be collected.
To avoid a further surcharge, the VAT return to 30 June 2005 should be submitted by 31 July at the latest. This would save
5% x ￡8,250 = ￡412.
In addition, Flop Ltd should obtain a refund of the VAT on the bad debt. Relief is available where;
(i) the debt is more than six months old, and
(ii) the debt has been written off in the creditor’s accounts.
The claim must be made within three years. The amount of VAT repayable is 17·5% of ￡50,000 = ￡8,750. If this is claimed
though the VAT return to 30 June 2005, there should be a net VAT repayment of (￡8,250 - ￡8,750) = ￡500. Even if this
return is submitted late, the fact that no VAT is outstanding means that there will be no surcharge actually payable (as
calculated above), but the surcharge period will nevertheless be extended.

正确答案：
(ii) Proposal to increase the after tax proceeds from the sale of the loan stock
AS should delay the sale of the loan stock until after 5 April 2008. The gain made at the time of the takeover would
then crystallise in 2008/09 and would be covered by the annual exemption for that year. The net proceeds would be
increased by the capital gains tax saved of ￡3,446 (￡8,616 x 40%).
More appropriate forms of external finance
A bank overdraft is not the most appropriate form. of long term business finance. This is because the bank can demand
repayment of the overdraft at any time and the rates of interest charged are fairly high.
AS should seek long term finance for his long term business needs, for example a bank loan secured on the theatre, and
use the bank overdraft to finance the working capital required on a day-to-day basis.

正确答案：
3 VOLCAN
(a) Store impairment
(i) Matters
■ Materiality
? The cost of goodwill represents 3·1% of total assets and is therefore material.
? However, after three years the carrying amount of goodwill ($2·2m) represents only 1·2% of total assets –
and is therefore immaterial in the context of the balance sheet.
? The annual amortisation charge ($1·1m) represents 11·6% profit before tax (PBT) and is therefore also
material (to the income statement).
? The impact of writing off the whole of the carrying amount would be material to PBT (23%).
Tutorial note: The temporary closure of the supermarket does not constitute a discontinued operation under IFRS 5
‘Non-Current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’.
■ Under IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’ Volcan should no longer be writing goodwill off over five years but
subjecting it to an annual impairment test.
■ The announcement is after the balance sheet date and is therefore a non-adjusting event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the
Balance Sheet Date’) insofar as no provision for restructuring (for example) can be made.
■ However, the event provides evidence of a possible impairment of the cash-generating unit which is this store and,
in particular, the value of goodwill assigned to it.
■ If the carrying amount of goodwill ($2·2m) can be allocated on a reasonable and consistent basis to this and the
other two stores (purchased at the same time) Volcan’s management should have applied an impairment test to
the goodwill of the downsized store (this is likely to show impairment).
■ If more than 22% of goodwill is attributable to the City Metro store – then its write-off would be material to PBT
(22% × $2·2m ÷ $9·5m = 5%).
■ If the carrying amount of goodwill cannot be so allocated; the impairment test should be applied to the
cash-generating unit that is the three stores (this may not necessarily show impairment).
■ Management should have considered whether the other four stores in Urvina (and elsewhere) are similarly
impaired.
■ Going concern is unlikely to be an issue unless all the supermarkets are located in cities facing a downward trend
in demand.
Tutorial note: Marks will be awarded for stating the rules for recognition of an impairment loss for a cash-generating
unit. However, as it is expected that the majority of candidates will not deal with this matter, the rules of IAS 36 are
not reproduced here.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Board minutes approving the store’s ‘facelift’ and documenting the need to address the fall in demand for it as a
supermarket.
■ Recomputation of the carrying amount of goodwill (2/5 × $5·5m = $2·2m).
■ A schedule identifying all the assets that relate to the store under review and the carrying amounts thereof agreed
to the underlying accounting records (e.g. non-current asset register).
■ Recalculation of value in use and/or fair value less costs to sell of the cash-generating unit (i.e. the store that is to
become the City Metro, or the three stores bought together) as at 31 March 2005.
Tutorial note: If just one of these amounts exceeds carrying amount there will be no impairment loss. Also, as
there is a plan NOT to sell the store it is most likely that value in use should be used.
■ Agreement of cash flow projections (e.g. to approved budgets/forecast revenues and costs for a maximum of five
years, unless a longer period can be justified).
■ Written management representation relating to the assumptions used in the preparation of financial budgets.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (and
the risks specific to the store) and is reasonable. For example, by comparison with Volcan’s weighted average cost
of capital.
■ Inspection of the store (if this month it should be closed for refurbishment).
■ Revenue budgets and cash flow projections for:
– the two stores purchased at the same time;
– the other stores in Urvina; and
– the stores elsewhere.
Also actual after-date sales by store compared with budget.

正确答案：

(c) Issue of bond
This form. of financing a football club’s operations is known as ‘securitisation’. Often in these cases a special purpose vehicle
is set up to administer the income stream or assets involved. In this case, a special purpose vehicle has not been set up. The
benefit of securitisation of the future corporate hospitality sales and season ticket receipts is that there will be a capital
injection into the club and it is likely that the effective interest rate is lower because of the security provided by the income
from the receipts. The main problem with the planned raising of capital is the way in which the money is to be used. The
use of the bond for ground improvements can be commended as long term cash should be used for long term investment but
using the bond for players’ wages will cause liquidity problems for the club.
This type of securitisation is often called a ‘future flow’ securitisation. There is no existing asset transferred to a special purpose
vehicle in this type of transaction and, therefore, there is no off balance sheet effect. The bond is shown as a long term liability
and is accounted for under IAS39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’. There are no issues of
derecognition of assets as there can be in other securitisation transactions. In some jurisdictions there are legal issues in
assigning future receivables as they constitute an unidentifiable debt which does not exist at present and because of this
uncertainty often the bond holders will require additional security such as a charge on the football stadium.
The bond will be a financial liability and it will be classified in one of two ways:
(i) Financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss include financial liabilities that the entity either has incurred for
trading purposes and, where permitted, has designated to the category at inception. Derivative liabilities are always
treated as held for trading unless they are designated and effective as hedging instruments. An example of a liability held
for trading is an issued debt instrument that the entity intends to repurchase in the near term to make a gain from shortterm
movements in interest rates. It is unlikely that the bond will be classified in this category.
(ii) The second category is financial liabilities measured at amortised cost. It is the default category for financial liabilities
that do not meet the criteria for financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. In most entities, most financial
liabilities will fall into this category. Examples of financial liabilities that generally would be classified in this category are
account payables, note payables, issued debt instruments, and deposits from customers. Thus the bond is likely to be
classified under this heading. When a financial liability is recognised initially in the balance sheet, the liability is
measured at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which a liability can be settled between knowledgeable, willing
parties in an arm’s length transaction. Since fair value is a market transaction price, on initial recognition fair value will
usually equal the amount of consideration received for the financial liability. Subsequent to initial recognition financial
liabilities are measured using amortised cost or fair value. In this case the company does not wish to use valuation
models nor is there an active market for the bond and, therefore, amortised cost will be used to measure the bond.
The bond will be shown initially at $50 million × 95%, i.e. $47·5 million as this is the consideration received. Subsequentlyat 31 December 2007, the bond will be shown as follows: