你知道ACCA的机考如何申请缓考？

正确答案：

正确答案：

Gow’s net assets
IAS36 ‘Impairment of Assets’, sets out the events that might indicate that an asset is impaired. These circumstances include
external events such as the decline in the market value of an asset and internal events such as a reduction in the cash flows
to be generated from an asset or cash generating unit. The loss of the only customer of a cash generating unit (power station)
would be an indication of the possible impairment of the cash generating unit. Therefore, the power station will have to be
impairment tested.
The recoverable amount will have to be determined and compared to the value given to the asset on the setting up of the
joint venture. The recoverable amount is the higher of the cash generating unit’s fair value less costs to sell, and its value-inuse.
The fair value less costs to sell will be $15 million which is the offer for the purchase of the power station ($16 million)
less the costs to sell ($1 million). The value-in-use is the discounted value of the future cash flows expected to arise from the
cash generating unit. The future dismantling costs should be provided for as it has been agreed with the government that it
will be dismantled. The cost should be included in the future cash flows for the purpose of calculating value-in-use and
provided for in the financial statements and the cost added to the property, plant and equipment ($4 million ($5m/1·064)).
The value-in-use based on a discount rate of 6 per cent is $21 million (working). Therefore, the recoverable amount is
$21 million which is higher than the carrying value of the cash generating unit ($20 million) and, therefore, the value of the
cash generating unit is not impaired when compared to the present carrying value of $20 million (value before impairment
test).
Additionally IAS39, ‘Financial Instruments: recognition and measurement’, says that an entity must assess at each balance
sheet date whether a financial asset is impaired. In this case the receivable of $7 million is likely to be impaired as Race is
going into administration. The present value of the estimated future cash flows will be calculated. Normally cash receipts from
trade receivables will not be discounted but because the amounts are not likely to be received for a year then the anticipated
cash payment is 80% of ($5 million × 1/1·06), i.e. $3·8 million. Thus a provision for the impairment of the trade receivables
of $3·2 million should be made. The intangible asset of $3 million would be valueless as the contract has been terminated.
Glass’s Net Assets
The leased property continues to be accounted for as property, plant and equipment and the carrying amount will not be
adjusted. However, the remaining useful life of the property will be revised to reflect the shorter term. Thus the property will
be depreciated at $2 million per annum over the next two years. The change to the depreciation period is applied prospectively
not retrospectively. The lease liability must be assessed under IAS39 in order to determine whether it constitutes a
de-recognition of a financial liability. As the change is a modification of the lease and not an extinguishment, the lease liability
would not be derecognised. The lease liability will be adjusted for the one off payment of $1 million and re-measured to the
present value of the revised future cash flows. That is $0·6 million/1·07 + $0·6 million/(1·07 × 1·07) i.e. $1·1 million. The
adjustment to the lease liability would normally be recognised in profit or loss but in this case it will affect the net capital
contributed by Glass.
The termination cost of the contract cannot be treated as an intangible asset. It is similar to redundancy costs paid to terminate
a contract of employment. It represents compensation for the loss of future income for the agency. Therefore it must be
removed from the balance sheet of York. The recognition criteria for an intangible asset require that there should be probable
future economic benefits flowing to York and the cost can be measured reliably. The latter criterion is met but the first criterion
is not. The cost of gaining future customers is not linked to this compensation.
IAS18 ‘Revenue’ contains a concept of a ‘multiple element’ arrangement. This is a contract which contains two or more
elements which are in substance separate and are separately identifiable. In other words, the two elements can operate
independently from each other. In this case, the contract with the overseas company has two distinct elements. There is a
contract not to supply gas to any other customer in the country and there is a contract to sell gas at fair value to the overseas
company. The contract has not been fulfilled as yet and therefore the payment of $1·5 million should not be taken to profit
or loss in its entirety at the first opportunity. The non supply of gas to customers in that country occurs over the four year
period of the contract and therefore the payment should be recognised over that period. Therefore the amount should be
shown as deferred income and not as a deduction from intangible assets. The revenue on the sale of gas will be recognised
as normal according to IAS18.
There may be an issue over the value of the net assets being contributed. The net assets contributed by Glass amount to
$21·9 million whereas those contributed by Gow only total $13·8 million after taking into account any adjustments required
by IFRS. The joint venturers have equal shareholding in York but no formal written agreements, thus problems may arise ifGlass feels that the contributions to the joint venture are unequal.

正确答案：
(c) Temporary staff assignments
Lending staff on a temporary basis to an audit client will create the following ethical threats:
Management involvement – Assuming that the manager or senior is seconded to the finance function of the audit client, it
is likely that the individual would be in some way involved in decision making in relation to the accounting systems,
management accounts or financial statements.
Self-review – On returning to the audit firm, a seconded individual could be a member of the audit team for the client to
which they seconded. This would create a self- review threat whereby they would be unlikely to be critical of their own work
performed or decisions made. Even if the individual were not assigned to the client where they performed a temporary
assignment, the audit team assigned may tend to over rely on areas worked on by a colleague during the period of their
temporary assignment.
Familiarity – if the individual is working at the client at any time during the audit, there will be a familiarity threat, whereby
audit team members will be unlikely to sufficiently challenge, and therefore not exercise enough professional scepticism when
dealing with work performed by the seconded individual.
In addition, due to the over-staffing problem of Becker & Co, the seconded individuals may feel that if they were not on the
secondment, they could be made redundant. This may cause them to act in such as way as not to jeopardise the secondment,
even if the action were not in the best interests of the firm.
The threats discussed above are increased where a senior person likely to make significant decisions is involved with the
temporary assignment, as in this case where audit managers or seniors will be the subjects of the proposed secondment.
In practice, assistance can be provided to clients, especially in emergency situations, but only on the understanding that the
firm’s personnel will not be involved with:
– Making management decisions,
– Approving or signing agreements or similar documents, and
– Having the authority to enter into commitments on behalf of the company.
In addition, the individual seconded to a client should not then be involved in any way with the audit of that client when they
return to the audit firm. This may be a difficult area, as presumably the client would prefer to have an individual seconded
to them who has knowledge and experience of their business, i.e. a member of the audit team, and most likely in this scenario
to be the audit manager. If this were the case the manager would then have to be reassigned to a different client, causing
internal problems for the audit firm. This problem is likely to outweigh any benefits, financial or otherwise, to Becker & Co.
If the temporary staff assignment were to a non-finance department of the client then the threats would be reduced.
If Becker & Co decides to go ahead with the secondment programme, the firm must ensure that the staff are suitably
experienced and qualified to carry out the work given to them by the client. There could be a risk to the reputation of Becker
& Co if the seconded staff are not competent or do not perform. as well as expected by the client.
One advantage of a secondment is that the individual concerned can benefit from exposure to a different type of work and
work environment. This will provide some valuable insights into accounting within a business and the individual may bring
some new skills and ideas back into the audit firm.
However, the staff seconded could be offered a permanent position at the client. This would lead to the loss of key members
of staff, and be detrimental for Becker & Co in the long run.
The other benefit for the audit firm is that a programme of secondments will ease the problem of an over-staffed audit
department, and should have cash flow benefits.
Tutorial note: In answering this question it is relevant to briefly mention corporate governance implications i.e. the client may
not be able to accept the services offered by their auditor for ethical, particularly objectivity, reasons.