2020年3月ACCA考试取消后,会不会影响6月的考试?速看!

发布时间:2020-02-11


20203ACCA考试取消后,会不会影响6月的考试?对于这个问题大家知道多少呢?接下来就跟着51题库考试学习网一起看看吧!

目前,ACCA中国区已全部取消原定于20203月的ACCA考试。很多人会问6月的考试是否会受影响呢?应不应该报考6月的ACCA考试呢?针对大家现有的常见问题,先给大家一一做个介绍:

1. 为何中国地区3月的ACCA 考试会被全部取消?

鉴于COVID-19病毒疫情的爆发和持续的影响,中国地区20203月的ACCA考试会被全部取消。此决定是ACCA与考试合作伙伴进行广泛讨论并依据中国政府的建议做出的。

2. 为何现在才做出此决定?

COVID-19病毒疫情的爆发导致在中国地区难以安全地进行三月份的考试。

ACCA官方一直努力在可进行的地方举行考试,但在与我们的考试合作伙伴进行广泛讨论并依据中国政府的建议,ACCA 3月份在中国地区举行的考试将被取消。做出此决定旨在给学员一个明确的信息,便于您对于自己的计划和学习作出相应的调整。

3. 如果情况有所改善,是否有可能在考试那周之前更改这个决定?

不会。一旦决定取消考试,这一决定将不会被撤销。即使COVID-19病毒疫情的状况将有明显地改善,取消考试仍是最终决定。

4. 如果举行考试的大学和机构在考试的第一天开放,考试还会继续进行吗?

不会,取消ACCA 20203月中国地区所有考试是最终决定。

5. 如果疫情得到控制,3月份的考试会否重新安排在4月或5月举行?

不会。由于考试操作的性质和复杂性,ACCA无法重新安排任何考试。下一次考试将于20206月举行。

6. 学员是否需要自行申请取消3月的考试?

不需要。对于报名参加20203月考试的学员,ACCA将取消并退还其所有3月考试报名费用。

7. 如何记录被取消的考试在学员中的考试记录?

您的 2020 3 月份考试报名将被取消,我们的记录将说明您的考试已被取消。

8. 学员的考试费用会全额退还吗?

会的。3月考试的所有费用将全额退还。

9. 退款将于何时以何种方式退还?

所有的退款都将退还至学员的myACCA账户。如果考试费用是由雇主支付的,考试费用将直接退还给雇主。

10. 退款所需时长约7~10个工作日。学员何时能知道已经安排退款?

20203月的考试报名被正式取消并安排退款时,学员将会收到一份自动生成的确认通知。

11. 是否可以将考试费用退还到学员的银行账户而不是myACCA?

所有退款将退还到您的myACCA账户。

退款后,如果您想要退还到一个银行账户,那么请发送电邮与英国总部联系,同时附上您的诉求的详情。

12.是否会影响6ACCA考试?

目前,所有的考试政策均会根据疫情的变化而有所调整,因此我们尚无法评估和确定本次疫情对于6ACCA考试的影响。但假如疫情仍未好转,那么ACCA官方仍然会采取积极主动的措施来应对可能存在的危险。因此,大家可以优先报考,并及时关注ACCA官方的政策即可。

如果各位小伙伴对ACCA考试的相关事项仍有疑问,欢迎随时到51题库考试学习网或其他相关网站查询,祝各位考试顺利。


下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

(c) Mr Cobar, the chief executive of SHC, has decided to draft two alternative statements to explain both possible

outcomes of the secrecy/licensing decision to shareholders. Once the board has decided which one to pursue,

the relevant draft will be included in a voluntary section of the next corporate annual report.

Required:

(i) Draft a statement in the event that the board chooses the secrecy option. It should make a convincing

business case and put forward ethical arguments for the secrecy option. The ethical arguments should

be made from the stockholder (or pristine capitalist) perspective. (8 marks)

(ii) Draft a statement in the event that the board chooses the licensing option. It should make a convincing

business case and put forward ethical arguments for the licensing option. The ethical arguments should

be made from the wider stakeholder perspective. (8 marks)

(iii) Professional marks for the persuasiveness and logical flow of arguments: two marks per statement.

(4 marks)

正确答案:

(c) (i) For the secrecy option
Important developments at SHC
This is an exciting time for the management and shareholders of Swan Hill Company. The research and development
staff at SHC have made a groundbreaking discovery (called the ‘sink method’) that will enable your company to produce
its major product at lower cost, in higher volumes and at a much higher quality than our competitors will be able to
using, as they do, the existing production technology. The sink process also produces at a lower rate of environmental
emissions which, as I’m sure shareholders will agree, is a very welcome development.
When considering the options following the discovery, your board decided that we should press ahead with the
investment needed to transform. the production facilities without offering the use of the technology to competitors under
a licensing arrangement. This means that once the new sink production comes on stream, SHC shareholders can, your
board believes, look forward to a significant strengthening of our competitive position.
The business case for this option is overwhelming. By pushing ahead with the investment needed to implement the sink
method, the possibility exists to gain a substantial competitive advantage over all of SHC’s competitors. It will place SHC
in a near monopolist position in the short term and in a dominant position long term. This will, in turn, give the company
pricing power in the industry and the likelihood of superior profits for many years to come. We would expect SHC to
experience substantial ‘overnight’ growth and the returns from this will reward shareholders’ loyalty and significantly
increase the value of the company. Existing shareholders can reasonably expect a significant increase in the value of
their holdings over the very short term and also over the longer term.
Ethical implications of the secrecy option
In addition to the overwhelming business case, however, there is a strong ethical case for the secrecy option. SHC
recognises that it is the moral purpose of SHC to make profits in order to reward those who have risked their own money
to support it over many years. Whilst some companies pursue costly programmes intended to serve multiple stakeholder
interests, SHC recognises that it is required to comply with the demands of its legal owners, its shareholders, and not
to dilute those demands with other concerns that will reduce shareholder returns. This is an important part of the agency
relationship: the SHC board will always serve the best economic interests of its shareholders: its legal owners. The SHC
board believes that any action taken that renders shareholder returns suboptimal is a threat to shareholder value and an
abuse of the agency position. Your board will always seek to maximise shareholder wealth; hence our decision to pursue
the secrecy option in this case. The secrecy option offers the possibility of optimal shareholder value and because
shareholders invest in SHC to maximise returns, that is the only ethical action for the board to pursue. Happily, this
option will also protect the employees’ welfare in SHC’s hometown of Swan Hill and demonstrate its commitment to the
locality. This, in turn, will help to manage two of the key value-adding resources in the company, its employees and its
reputation. This will help in local recruitment and staff retention in future years.
(ii) For the licensing option
Important developments at SHC
Your board was recently faced with a very difficult business and ethical decision. After the discovery by SHC scientists
of the groundbreaking sink production method, we had a choice of keeping the new production technology secret or
sharing the breakthrough under a licensing arrangement with our competitors. After a lengthy discussion, your board
decided that we should pursue the licensing option and I would like to explain our reasons for this on both business and
ethical grounds.
In terms of the business case for licensing, I would like shareholders to understand that although the secrecy option may
have offered SHC the possibility of an unassailable competitive advantage, in reality, it would have incurred a number
of risks. Because of the speed with which we would have needed to have acted, it would have necessitated a large
increase in our borrowing, bringing about a substantial change in our financial structure. This would, in turn, increase
liquidity pressures and make us more vulnerable to rising interest rates. A second risk with the secrecy option would
involve the security of the sink technology ‘secret’. If the sink process was leaked or discovered by competitors and
subsequently copied, our lack of a legally binding patent would mean we would have no legal way to stop them
proceeding with their own version of the sink process.
As well as avoiding the risks, however, the licensing option offers a number of specific business advantages. The royalties
from the licences granted to competitors are expected to be very large indeed. These will be used over the coming years
to extend our existing competitive advantage in the future. Finally, the ‘improvement sharing’ clause in the licensing
contract will ensure that the sink process will be improved and perfected with several manufacturers using the
technology at the same time. SHC’s sink production may, in consequence, improve at a faster rate than would have
been the case were we to have pursued the secrecy option.
Ethical implications of the licensing option
In addition to the business case, there is also a powerful ethical case for the decision we have taken. As a good,
responsible corporate citizen, Swan Hill Company acknowledges its many stakeholders and recognises the impacts that
a business decision has on others. Your board recognises that in addition to external stakeholders having influence over
our operations, our decisions can also affect others. In this case, we have carefully considered the likelihood that keeping
the new technology a secret from our competitors would radically reshape the industry. The superior environmental
performance of the sink process over existing methods will also mean that when fully adopted, the environmental
emissions of the entire industry will be reduced. SHC is very proud of this contribution to this reduction in overall
environmental impact.
There seems little doubt that the secrecy option would have had far-reaching and unfortunate effects upon our industry
and our competitors. The licensing option will allow competitors, and their employees and shareholders, to survive. It
is a compassionate act on our part and shows mercy to the other competitors in the industry. It recognises the number
of impacts that a business decision has and would be the fairest (and most just) option given the number of people
affected.


(b) A summary of the information needed to satisfy our obligations under the money laundering legislation and

any action that should be taken before agreeing to become tax advisers to the Saturn Ltd group. (5 marks)

正确答案:
(b) Before agreeing to become tax advisers to the Saturn Ltd group
Information needed:
– Proof of incorporation and primary business address and registered office.
– The structure, directors and shareholders of the company.
– The identities of those persons instructing the firm on behalf of the company and those persons that are authorised to
do so.
Action to take:
– Consider whether becoming tax advisers to the Saturn Ltd group would create any threats to compliance with the
fundamental principles of professional ethics, for example integrity and professional competence. Where such threats
exist, we should not accept the appointment unless the threats can be reduced to an acceptable level via the
implementation of safeguards.
– Contact the existing tax adviser in order to ensure that there has been no action by the Saturn Ltd group that would, on
ethical grounds, preclude us from accepting appointment.

(b) Explain how the non-payment of contributions and the change in the pension benefits should be treated in

the financial statements of Savage for the year ended 31 October 2005. (4 marks)

正确答案:
(b) The contributions payable by Savage to the trustees will not count as an asset for the purposes of the valuation of the fund.
IAS19 (paragraph 103) states that plan assets should not include unpaid contributions due from the reporting entity to the
fund. Thus in the financial statements of Savage the contributions would be shown as an amount payable to the trustees
and there may be legal repercussions if the amount is not paid within a short period of time. Following the introduction of
changes to a defined benefit plan, a company should recognise immediately past service costs where the benefit has vested.
In the case where the benefits have not vested then the past service costs will be recognised as an expense over the averageperiod until the benefits vest. The company will therefore recognise $125 million at 1 November 2004.

3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Lamont Co. The company’s principal activity is wholesaling frozen

fish. The draft consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 show revenue of $67·0 million

(2006 – $62·3 million), profit before taxation of $11·9 million (2006 – $14·2 million) and total assets of

$48·0 million (2006 – $36·4 million).

The following issues arising during the final audit have been noted on a schedule of points for your attention:

(a) In early 2007 a chemical leakage from refrigeration units owned by Lamont caused contamination of some of its

property. Lamont has incurred $0·3 million in clean up costs, $0·6 million in modernisation of the units to

prevent future leakage and a $30,000 fine to a regulatory agency. Apart from the fine, which has been expensed,

these costs have been capitalised as improvements. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Lamont Co for the year ended

31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

正确答案:
3 LAMONT CO
(a) Chemical leakage
(i) Matters
■ $30,000 fine is very immaterial (just 1/4% profit before tax). This is revenue expenditure and it is correct that it
has been expensed to the income statement.
■ $0·3 million represents 0·6% total assets and 2·5% profit before tax and is not material on its own. $0·6 million
represents 1·2% total assets and 5% profit before tax and is therefore material to the financial statements.
■ The $0·3 million clean-up costs should not have been capitalised as the condition of the property is not improved
as compared with its condition before the leakage occurred. Although not material in isolation this amount should
be adjusted for and expensed, thereby reducing the aggregate of uncorrected misstatements.
■ It may be correct that $0·6 million incurred in modernising the refrigeration units should be capitalised as a major
overhaul (IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment). However, any parts scrapped as a result of the modernisation
should be treated as disposals (i.e. written off to the income statement).
■ The carrying amount of the refrigeration units at 31 March 2007, including the $0·6 million for modernisation,
should not exceed recoverable amount (i.e. the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell). If it does,
an allowance for the impairment loss arising must be recognised in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A breakdown/analysis of costs incurred on the clean-up and modernisation amounting to $0·3 million and
$0·6 million respectively.
■ Agreement of largest amounts to invoices from suppliers/consultants/sub-contractors, etc and settlement thereof
traced from the cash book to the bank statement.
■ Physical inspection of the refrigeration units to confirm their modernisation and that they are in working order. (Do
they contain frozen fish?)
■ Sample of components selected from the non-current asset register traced to the refrigeration units and inspected
to ensure continuing existence.
■ $30,000 penalty notice from the regulatory agency and corresponding cash book payment/payment per the bank
statement.
■ Written management representation that there are no further penalties that should be provided for or disclosed other
than the $30,000 that has been accounted for.

声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。