2020年ACCA考试F6、P6科目特点及备考建议

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
(b) Matters to be considered (before accepting the engagement)
Tutorial note: Although candidates may approach this part from a rote-learned list of ‘matters to consider’ it is important
that answer points be tailored, in so far as the information given in the scenario permits, to the specifics of Plaza and MCM.
It is critical that answer points should not contradict the scenario (e.g. assuming that it is Plaza’s auditor who has been
asked to undertake the assignment).
■ Information about Duncan Seymour – What is the relationship of the chief finance officer to Plaza (e.g. is he on the
management board)? By what authority is he approaching Andando to undertake this assignment?
■ The purpose of the assignment must be clarified. Duncan’s approach to Andando is ‘to advise on a bid’. However,
Andando cannot make executive decisions for a client but only provide the facts of material interest. Plaza’s
management must decide whether or not to bid and, if so, how much to bid.
■ The scope of the due diligence review. It seems likely that Plaza will be interested in acquiring all of MCM’s business
as its areas of operation coincide with Plaza’s. However it must be confirmed that Plaza is not merely interested in
acquiring only the National or International business of MCM.
■ Andando’s competence and experience – Andando should not accept the engagement unless the firm has experience in
undertaking due diligence assignments. Even then, the firm must have sufficient knowledge of the territories in which
the businesses operate to evaluate whether all facts of material interest to Plaza have been identified.
Tutorial note: Candidates should be querying their competence and experience in the fields of retailing and training
as though they were dealing with highly regulated or specialist industries such as banking or insurance.
■ Whether Andando has sufficient resources (e.g. representative/associated offices), if any, in Europe and Asia to
investigate MCM’s International business.
■ Any factors which might impair Andando’s objectivity in reporting to Plaza the facts uncovered by the due diligence
review. For example, if Duncan is closely connected with a partner in Andando or if Andando is the auditor of Frontiers.
Tutorial note: Candidates will not be awarded marks for going into ‘autopilot’ on independence issues. For example,
this is a one-off assignment so size of fee is not relevant. Andando holding shares in MCM is not possible (since whollyowned).
■ Plaza’s rationale for wishing to acquire MCM. Presumably it is significant that MCM operates in the same territories as
Plaza. Plaza may be wanting to provide extensive training programs in management, communications and marketing
to its workforce.
■ The relationship, if any, between Plaza and MCM in any of the territories. Plaza may be a major client of MCM. That
is, Plaza is currently out-sourcing training to MCM. Acquiring MCM would bring training in-house.
Tutorial note: Ascertaining what a purchaser hopes to gain from an acquisition before the assignment is accepted is
important. The facts to be uncovered for a merger from which synergy is expected will be different from those relevant
to acquiring an investment opportunity.
■ Time available – Andando must have sufficient time to find all facts that would be of material interest to Plaza before
disclosing their findings.
■ The acceptability of any limitations – whether there will be restrictions on Andando’s access to information held by MCM
(e.g. if there will not be access to board minutes) and personnel.
■ The degree of secrecy required – this may go beyond the normal duties of confidentiality not to disclose information to
outsiders (e.g. if unannounced staff redundancies could arise).
■ Why Plaza’s current auditors have not been asked to conduct the due diligence review – especially as they are
responsible for (and therefore capable of undertaking) the group audit covering the relevant countries.
■ Andando should be allowed to communicate with Plaza’s current auditor:
– to inform. them of the nature of the work they have been asked to undertake; and
– to enquire if there is any reason why they should not accept this assignment.
■ In taking on Plaza as a new client Andando may have a later opportunity to offer external audit and other services to
Plaza (e.g. internal audit).

正确答案：

正确答案：
(c) Fines and penalties
(i) Matters
■ $0·1 million represents 5·6% of profit before tax and is therefore material. However, profit has fallen, and
compared with prior year profit it is less than 5%. So ‘borderline’ material in quantitative terms.
■ Prior year amount was three times as much and represented 13·6% of profit before tax.
■ Even though the payments may be regarded as material ‘by nature’ separate disclosure may not be necessary if,
for example, there are no external shareholders.
■ Treatment (inclusion in cost of sales) should be consistent with prior year (‘The Framework’/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of
Financial Statements’).
■ The reason for the fall in expense. For example, whether due to an improvement in meeting health and safety
regulations and/or incomplete recording of liabilities (understatement).
■ The reason(s) for the breaches. For example, Albreda may have had difficulty implementing new guidelines in
response to stricter regulations.
■ Whether expenditure has been adjusted for in the income tax computation (as disallowed for tax purposes).
■ Management’s attitude to health and safety issues (e.g. if it regards breaches as an acceptable operational practice
or cheaper than compliance).
■ Any references to health and safety issues in other information in documents containing audited financial
statements that might conflict with Albreda incurring these costs.
■ Any cost savings resulting from breaches of health and safety regulations would result in Albreda possessing
proceeds of its own crime which may be a money laundering offence.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A schedule of amounts paid totalling $0·1 million with larger amounts being agreed to the cash book/bank
statements.
■ Review/comparison of current year schedule against prior year for any apparent omissions.
■ Review of after-date cash book payments and correspondence with relevant health and safety regulators (e.g. local
authorities) for liabilities incurred before 30 September 2005.
■ Notes in the prior year financial statements confirming consistency, or otherwise, of the lack of separate disclosure.
■ A ‘signed off’ review of ‘other information’ (i.e. directors’ report, chairman’s statement, etc).
■ Written management representation that there are no fines/penalties other than those which have been reflected in
the financial statements.