必看！ 2020年6月ACCA考纲，变了！

发布时间：2020-03-13

关于2020年6月ACCA考纲变了，你知道吗？不知道的也没关系，下面就跟着51题库考试学习网一起来了解一下吧！

2020年6月考季的英国税法（TX-UK）科目考试要调整啦

因为3月考试季的取消，部分为3月英国税法（TX-UK）科目考试做准备的同学不得不将考试推迟到6月季，对于这部分同学，英国税法（TX-UK）科目的调整有什么影响呢？让我们来看一看！

2020年6月考季的英国税法（TX-UK）科目考试将就2019财政法案（Finance Act 2019）进行考核。

与2020年3月考试大纲相比，主要涉及到常规税率和减免额度的调整，这在不同的税务年度经常发生，算是常规性的调整。并且大多数新税率和减免额度在考试时都会提供给学员。所以不必太过担忧。

以上列表是发生变化的税率。

例如第四章Benefit中的知识要点Car benefit percentage，将排放为95个g的车辆税率，从原先的20%变为23%，增加了3个百分点。

以上是减免额度的变化

另一部分的变化，是由于相关法规的分阶段引入。

上图是Property Business-Finance Costs，财产出租经营的融资成本部分知识点所涉及的内容。以前融资费用可以从租金费用中扣除，而现在只能部分从当年的租金费用中扣除，还要形成tax reducer。

以上就是51题库考试学习网带给大家的内容，如果还有其他不清楚的问题，请及时反馈给51题库考试学习网，我们会尽快帮您解答。

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。

(b) You are the audit manager of Petrie Co, a private company, that retails kitchen utensils. The draft financial

statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 show revenue $42·2 million (2006 – $41·8 million), profit before

taxation of $1·8 million (2006 – $2·2 million) and total assets of $30·7 million (2006 – $23·4 million).

You are currently reviewing two matters that have been left for your attention on Petrie’s audit working paper file

for the year ended 31 March 2007:

(i) Petrie’s management board decided to revalue properties for the year ended 31 March 2007 that had

previously all been measured at depreciated cost. At the balance sheet date three properties had been

revalued by a total of $1·7 million. Another nine properties have since been revalued by $5·4 million. The

remaining three properties are expected to be revalued later in 2007. (5 marks)

Required:

Identify and comment on the implications of these two matters for your auditor’s report on the financial

statements of Petrie Co for the year ended 31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the matters above.

正确答案：
(b) Implications for auditor’s report
(i) Selective revaluation of premises
The revaluations are clearly material to the balance sheet as $1·7 million and $5·4 million represent 5·5% and 17·6%
of total assets, respectively (and 23·1% in total). As the effects of the revaluation on line items in the financial statements
are clearly identified (e.g. revalued amount, depreciation, surplus in statement of changes in equity) the matter is not
pervasive.
The valuations of the nine properties after the year end provide additional evidence of conditions existing at the year end
and are therefore adjusting events per IAS 10 Events After the Balance Sheet Date.
Tutorial note: It is ‘now’ still less than three months after the year end so these valuations can reasonably be expected
to reflect year end values.
However, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment does not permit the selective revaluation of assets thus the whole class
of premises would need to have been revalued for the year to 31 March 2007 to change the measurement basis for this
reporting period.
The revaluation exercise is incomplete. Unless the remaining three properties are revalued before the auditor’s report on
the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 is signed off:
(1) the $7·1 revaluation made so far must be reversed to show all premises at depreciated cost as in previous years;
OR
(2) the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement regarding non-compliance with IAS 16.
When it is appropriate to adopt the revaluation model (e.g. next year) the change in accounting policy (from a cost model
to a revaluation model) should be accounted for in accordance with IAS 16 (i.e. as a revaluation).
Tutorial note: IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors does not apply to the initial
application of a policy to revalue assets in accordance with IAS 16.
Assuming the revaluation is written back, before giving an unmodified opinion, the auditor should consider why the three
properties were not revalued. In particular if there are any indicators of impairment (e.g. physical dilapidation) there
should be sufficient evidence on the working paper file to show that the carrying amount of these properties is not
materially greater than their recoverable amount (i.e. the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell).
If there is insufficient evidence to confirm that the three properties are not impaired (e.g. if the auditor was prevented
from inspecting the properties) the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of limitation on scope.
If there is evidence of material impairment but management fail to write down the carrying amount to recoverable
amount the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement regarding non-compliance with IAS 36
Impairment of Assets.

(c) In April 2006, Keffler was banned by the local government from emptying waste water into a river because the

water did not meet minimum standards of cleanliness. Keffler has made a provision of $0·9 million for the

technological upgrading of its water purifying process and included $45,000 for the penalties imposed in ‘other

provisions’. (5 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 Keffler Co for the year ended

31 March 2006.

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

正确答案：
(c) Ban on emptying waste water
(i) Matter
■ $0·9m provision for upgrading the process represents 45% PBT and is very material. This provision is also
material to the balance sheet (2·7% of total assets).
■ The provision for penalties is immaterial (2·2% PBT and 0·1% total assets).
■ The ban is an adjusting post balance sheet event in respect of the penalties (IAS 10). It provides evidence that at
the balance sheet date Keffler was in contravention of local government standards. Therefore it is correct (in
accordance with IAS 37) that a provision has been made for the penalties. As the matter is not material inclusion
in ‘other provisions’ is appropriate.
■ However, even if Keffler has a legal obligation to meet minimum standards, there is no obligation for upgrading the
purifying process at 31 March 2006 and the $0·9m provision should be written back.
■ If the provision for upgrading is not written back the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ (disagreement).
■ Keffler does not even have a contingent liability for upgrading the process because there is no present obligation to
do so. The obligation is to stop emptying unclean water into the river. Nor is there a possible obligation whose
existence will be confirmed by an uncertain future event not wholly within Keffler’s control.
Tutorial note: Consider that Keffler has alternatives wholly within its control. For example, it could ignore the ban
and incur fines, or relocate/close this particular plant/operation or perhaps dispose of the water by alternative
means.
■ The need for a technological upgrade may be an indicator of impairment. Management should have carried out
an impairment test on the carrying value of the water purifying process and recognised any impairment loss in the
profit for the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Management’s intention to upgrade the process is more appropriate to an environmental responsibility report (if
any).
■ Whether there is any other information in documents containing financial statements.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Penalty notices of fines received to confirm amounts and period/dates covered.
■ After-date payment of fines agreed to the cash book.
■ A copy of the ban and any supporting report on the local government’s findings.
■ Minutes of board meetings at which the ban was discussed confirming management’s intentions (e.g. to upgrade
the process).
Tutorial note: This may be disclosed in the directors’ report and/or as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event.
■ Any tenders received/costings for upgrading.
Tutorial note: This will be relevant if, for example, capital commitment authorised (by the board) but not
contracted for at the year end are disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.
■ Physical inspection of the emptying point at the river to confirm that Keffler is not still emptying waste water into
it (unless the upgrading has taken place).
Tutorial note: Thereby incurring further penalties.

6 Sergio and Gerard each inherited a half interest in a property, ‘Hilltop’, in October 2005. ‘Hilltop’ had a probate value

of ￡124,000, but in November 2005 it was badly damaged by fire. In January 2006 the insurance company made

a payment of ￡81,700 each to Sergio and Gerard. In February 2006 Sergio and Gerard each spent ￡55,500 of the

insurance proceeds on restoring the property. ‘Hilltop’ was worth ￡269,000 following the restoration work. In July

2006, Sergio and Gerard sold ‘Hilltop’ for ￡310,000.

Sergio is 69 years old and a widower with three adult children and seven grandchildren. His annual income consists

of a pension of ￡9,900 and interest of ￡300 on savings of ￡7,600 in a bank deposit account. Sergio owns his home

but no other significant assets. He plans to buy a domestic rental property with the proceeds from the sale of ‘Hilltop’,

such that on his death he will have a significant asset which can be sold and divided between the members of his

family.

Gerard is 34 years old. He is employed by Fizz plc on a salary of ￡66,500 per year together with a performance

related bonus. Gerard estimates that he will receive a bonus in December 2007 of ￡4,500, in line with previous

years, and that his taxable benefits in the tax year 2007/08 will amount to ￡7,140. He also expects to receive

dividends from UK companies of ￡1,935 and bank interest of ￡648 in the tax year 2007/08. Gerard intends to set

up a personal pension plan in August 2007. He has not made any pension contributions in the past and proposes to

use part of the proceeds from the sale of ‘Hilltop’ to make the maximum possible tax allowable contribution.

Fizz plc has announced that it intends to replace the performance related bonus scheme with a share incentive plan,

also linked to performance, with effect from 6 April 2008. Gerard estimates that Fizz plc will award him free shares

worth ￡2,100 each year. He will also purchase partnership shares worth ￡700 each year and, as a result, will be

awarded matching shares (further free shares) worth ￡1,400.

Required:

(a) Calculate the chargeable gains arising on the receipt of the insurance proceeds in January 2006 and the sale

of ‘Hilltop’ in July 2006. You should assume that any elections necessary to minimise the gain on the receipt

of the insurance proceeds have been submitted. (4 marks)

正确答案：

 

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。

站内搜索
热门标签