必看！最新ACCA考试成绩查询和复核方式

正确答案：
(b) Sale of industrial equipment
(i) Matters
■ The industrial equipment was in use for nine years (from April 1996) and would have had a carrying value of
$660,000 at 31 March 2005 (11/20 × $1·2m – assuming nil residual value and a full year’s depreciation charge
in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal). Disposal proceeds were therefore only $360,000.
■ The $0·3m loss represents 15% of PBT (for the year to 31 March 2006) and is therefore material. The equipment
was material to the balance sheet at 31 March 2005 representing 2·6% of total assets ($0·66/$25·7 × 100).
■ Separate disclosure, of a material loss on disposal, on the face of the income statement is in accordance with
IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. However, in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’,
it should not be captioned in any way that might suggest that it is not part of normal operating activities (i.e. not
‘extraordinary’, ‘exceptional’, etc).
Tutorial note: However, note that if there is a prior period error to be accounted for (see later), there would be
no impact on the current period income statement requiring consideration of any disclosure.
■ The reason for the sale. For example, whether the equipment was:
– surplus to operating requirements (i.e. not being replaced); or
– being replaced with newer equipment (thereby contributing to the $8·1m increase (33·8 – 25·7) in total
assets).
■ The reason for the loss on sale. For example, whether:
– the sale was at an under-value (e.g. to a related party);
– the equipment had a bad maintenance history (or was otherwise impaired);
– the useful life of the equipment is less than 20 years;
– there is any deferred consideration not yet recorded;
– any non-cash disposal proceeds have been overlooked (e.g. if another asset was acquired in a part-exchange).
■ If the useful life was less than 20 years, tangible non-current assets may be materially overstated in respect of other
items of equipment that are still in use and being depreciated on the same basis.
■ If the sale was to a related party then additional disclosure should be required in a note to the financial statements
for the year to 31 March 2006 (IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures’).
Tutorial note: Since there are no specific pointers to a related party transaction (RPT), this point is not expanded
on.
■ Whether the sale was identified in the prior year audit’s post balance sheet event review. If so:
– the disclosure made in the prior year’s financial statements (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’);
– whether an impairment loss was recognised at 31 March 2005.
■ If not, and the equipment was impaired at 31 March 2005, a prior period error should be accounted for (IAS 8
‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’). An impairment loss of $0·3m would have
been material to prior year profit (12·5%).
Tutorial note: Unless this was a RPT or the impairment arose after 31 March 2005 a prior period adjustment
should be made.
■ Failure to account for a prior period error (if any) would result in modification of the audit opinion ‘except for’ noncompliance
with IAS 8 (in the current year) and IAS 36 (in the prior period).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying amount ($0·66m as above) agreed to the non-current asset register balances at 31 March 2005 and
recalculation of the loss on disposal.
■ Cost and accumulated depreciation removed from the asset register in the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Receipt of proceeds per cash book agreed to bank statement.
■ Sales invoice transferring title to Deakin.
■ A review of maintenance expenses and records (e.g. to confirm reason for loss on sale).
■ Post balance sheet event review on prior year audit working papers file.
■ Management representation confirming that Deakin is not a related party (provided that there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise).

正确答案：

(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).

(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.

正确答案：
(iii) Retail outlets
The two new long lease agreements have been separately classified as an operating lease and a finance lease. The lease
premium paid for a finance lease should be capitalised and recognised as an asset under the lease. IAS17 ‘Leases’ says that
costs identified as directly attributable to a finance lease are added to the amount recognised as an asset. It will be included
in the present value calculation of the minimum lease payments. The finance lease will be recognised at its fair value or if
lower the present value of the minimum lease payments. The premium will be depreciated as part of the asset’s value over
the shorter of the lease term and the asset’s useful life. Initially, a finance lease liability will be set up which is equal to the
value of the leased asset.
The operating lease premium will be spread over the lease term on a straight line basis unless some other method is more
representative. The premium will be effectively treated as a prepayment of rent and is amortised over the life of the agreement.

正确答案：
(c) There are many reasons that could be discussed in support of the view that net present value (NPV) is superior to other
investment appraisal methods.
NPV considers cash flows
This is the reason why NPV is preferred to return on capital employed (ROCE), since ROCE compares average annual
accounting profit with initial or average capital invested. Financial management always prefers cash flows to accounting profit,
since profit is seen as being open to manipulation. Furthermore, only cash flows are capable of adding to the wealth of
shareholders in the form. of increased dividends. Both internal rate of return (IRR) and Payback also consider cash flows.
NPV considers the whole of an investment project
In this respect NPV is superior to Payback, which measures the time it takes for an investment project to repay the initial
capital invested. Payback therefore considers cash flows within the payback period and ignores cash flows outside of the
payback period. If Payback is used as an investment appraisal method, projects yielding high returns outside of the payback
period will be wrongly rejected. In practice, however, it is unlikely that Payback will be used alone as an investment appraisal
method.
NPV considers the time value of money
NPV and IRR are both discounted cash flow (DCF) models which consider the time value of money, whereas ROCE and
Payback do not. Although Discounted Payback can be used to appraise investment projects, this method still suffers from the
criticism that it ignores cash flows outside of the payback period. Considering the time value of money is essential, since
otherwise cash flows occurring at different times cannot be distinguished from each other in terms of value from the
perspective of the present time.
NPV is an absolute measure of return
NPV is seen as being superior to investment appraisal methods that offer a relative measure of return, such as IRR and ROCE,
and which therefore fail to reflect the amount of the initial investment or the absolute increase in corporate value. Defenders
of IRR and ROCE respond that these methods offer a measure of return that is understandable by managers and which can
be intuitively compared with economic variables such as interest rates and inflation rates.
NPV links directly to the objective of maximising shareholders’ wealth
The NPV of an investment project represents the change in total market value that will occur if the investment project is
accepted. The increase in wealth of each shareholder can therefore be measured by the increase in the value of their
shareholding as a percentage of the overall issued share capital of the company. Other investment appraisal methods do not
have this direct link with the primary financial management objective of the company.
NPV always offers the correct investment advice
With respect to mutually exclusive projects, NPV always indicates which project should be selected in order to achieve the
maximum increase on corporate value. This is not true of IRR, which offers incorrect advice at discount rates which are less
than the internal rate of return of the incremental cash flows. This problem can be overcome by using the incremental yield
approach.
NPV can accommodate changes in the discount rate
While NPV can easily accommodate changes in the discount rate, IRR simply ignores them, since the calculated internal rate
of return is independent of the cost of capital in all time periods.
NPV has a sensible re-investment assumption
NPV assumes that intermediate cash flows are re-invested at the company’s cost of capital, which is a reasonable assumption
as the company’s cost of capital represents the average opportunity cost of the company’s providers of finance, i.e. it
represents a rate of return which exists in the real world. By contrast, IRR assumes that intermediate cash flows are reinvested
at the internal rate of return, which is not an investment rate available in practice,
NPV can accommodate non-conventional cash flows
Non-conventional cash flows exist when negative cash flows arise during the life of the project. For each change in sign there
is potentially one additional internal rate of return. With non-conventional cash flows, therefore, IRR can suffer from the
technical problem of giving multiple internal rates of return.