快来看看！2020年6月西藏ACCA考试时间延期了吗

正确答案：
(c) Site restoration
(i) Matters
■ The provision for site restoration represents nearly 2·5% of total assets and is therefore material if it is not
warranted.
■ The estimated cost of restoring the site is a cost directly attributable to the initial measurement of the tangible fixed
asset to the extent that it is recognised as a provision under IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’ (IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’).
■ A provision should not be recognised for site restoration unless it meets the definition of a liability, i.e:
– a present obligation;
– arising from past events;
– the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits.
■ The provision is overstated by nearly $0·34m since Volcan is not obliged to relocate the trees and de facto has
only an obligation of $60,000 as at 31 March 2005 (being the penalty for having felled them). When considered
in isolation, this overstatement is immaterial (representing only 0·2% of total assets and 3·6% of PBT).
■ It seems that even if there are local government regulations calling for site restoration there is no obligation unless
the penalties for non-compliance are prohibitive (unlike the fines for the trees).
■ It is unlikely that commencement of site development has given rise to a constructive obligation, since past actions
(disregarding the preservation of the trees) must dispel any expectation that Volcan will honour any pledge to
restore the valley.
■ Whether commencing development of the site, and destroying the trees, conflicts with any statement of socioenvironmental
responsibility in the annual report.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A copy of the planning application and permission granted setting out the penalties for non-compliance.
■ Payment of $60,000 to local government in May 2005 agreed to the bank statement.
■ The present value calculation of the future cash expenditure making up the $4·0m provision.
Tutorial note: Evidence supporting the calculation of $0·4m is irrelevant as there is no liability to be provided for.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (as
for (a)).
■ Asset inspection at the site as at 31 March 2005.
■ Any contracts entered into which might confirm or dispute management’s intentions to restore the site. For
example, whether plant hire (bulldozers, etc) covers only the period over which the warehouse will be constructed
– or whether it extends to the period in which the valley would be ‘made good’.

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(ii) If the directors agree to disclose the note, it should be reviewed by the auditors to ensure that it is sufficiently detailed.
In evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure in the note, the auditor should consider whether the disclosure explicitly
draws the reader’s attention to the possibility that the entity may not be able to continue as a going concern in the
foreseeable future. The note should include a description of conditions giving rise to significant doubt, and the directors’
plans to deal with the conditions. If the note provided contains adequate information then there is no breach of financial
reporting standards, and so no disagreement with the directors.
If the disclosure is considered adequate, then the opinion should not be qualified. The auditors should consider a
modification by adding an emphasis of matter paragraph to highlight the existence of the material uncertainties, and to
draw attention to the note to the financial statements. The emphasis of matter paragraph should firstly contain a brief
description of the uncertainties, and also refer explicitly to the note to the financial statements where the situation has
been fully described. The emphasis of matter paragraph should re-iterate that the audit opinion is not qualified.
However, it could be the case that a note has been given in the financial statements, but that the details are inadequate
and do not fully explain the significant uncertainties affecting the going concern status of the company. In this situation
the auditors should express a qualified opinion, disagreeing with the preparation of the financial statements, as the
disclosure requirements of IAS 1 have not been followed.