2019ACCA这些免考福利政策你都清楚了吗？

正确答案：
(c) Small businesses face a number of well-documented problems when seeking to raise additional finance. These problems have
been extensively discussed and governments regularly make initiatives seeking to address these problems.
Risk and security
Investors are less willing to offer finance to small companies as they are seen as inherently more risky than large companies.
Small companies obtaining debt finance usually use overdrafts or loans from banks, which require security to reduce the level
of risk associated with the debt finance. Since small companies are likely to possess little by way of assets to offer as security,
banks usually require a personal guarantee instead, and this limits the amount of finance available.
Marketability of ordinary shares
The equity issued by small companies is difficult to buy and sell, and sales are usually on a matched bargain basis, which
means that a shareholder wishing to sell has to wait until an investor wishes to buy. There is no financial intermediary willing
to buy the shares and hold them until a buyer comes along, so selling shares in a small company can potentially take a long
time. This lack of marketability reduces the price that a buyer is willing to pay for the shares. Investors in small company
shares have traditionally looked to a flotation, for example on the UK Alternative Investment Market, as a way of realising their
investment, but this has become increasingly expensive. Small companies are likely to be very limited in their ability to offer
new equity to anyone other than family and friends.
Tax considerations
Individuals with cash to invest may be encouraged by the tax system to invest in large institutional investors rather than small
companies, for example by tax incentives offered on contributions to pension funds. These institutional investors themselves
usually invest in larger companies, such as stock-exchange listed companies, in order to maintain what they see as an
acceptable risk profile, and in order to ensure a steady stream of income to meet ongoing liabilities. This tax effect reduces
the potential flow of funds to small companies.
Cost
Since small companies are seen as riskier than large companies, the cost of the finance they are offered is proportionately
higher. Overdrafts and bank loans will be offered to them on less favourable terms and at more demanding interest rates than
debt offered to larger companies. Equity investors will expect higher returns, if not in the form. of dividends then in the form
of capital appreciation over the life of their investment.

正确答案：
(b) Reward scheme
(i) Matters
■ If the entire year’s revenue ($303m) attracted store points then the cost of the reward scheme in the year is at
most $3·03m. This represents 1% of revenue, which is material to the income statement and very material
(31·9%) to profit before tax (PBT).
■ The proportion of customers who register for loyalty cards and the percentage of revenue (and profit) which they
represent (which may vary from store to store depending on customer profile).
■ In accordance with the assumption of accruals, which underlies the preparation and presentation of financial
statements (The Framework/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’), the expense and liability should be
recognised as revenue is earned. (It is of the nature of a discount.)
■ Any restrictions on the terms for converting points (e.g. whether they expire if not used within a specified time).
■ To the extent that points have been awarded but not redeemed at 31 March 2005, Volcan will have a liability at
the balance sheet date.
■ Agree the total balance due to customers at the year end under the reward scheme to the sum of the points on
individual customer reward cards.
■ The proportion of reward points awarded which are not expected to be claimed (e.g. the ‘take up’ of points awarded
may be only 80%, say).
■ Whether reward points are valued at selling price or cost. For example, if the average gross profit margin is 20%,
one point is equivalent to 0·8 cents of goods at cost.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ New/updated systems documentation explaining how:
– loyalty cards (and numbers) are issued to customers;
– points earned are recorded at the point of sale; and
– points are later redeemed on subsequent purchases.
■ Walk-through tests (e.g. on registering customer applications and issuing loyalty cards, awarding of points on
special offer items).
■ Tests of controls supporting the extent to which audit reliance is placed on the accounting and internal control
system. In particular, how points are extracted from the electronic tills (cash registers) and summarised into the
weekly/monthly financial data for each store which underlies the financial statements.
■ Analytical procedures on the value of points awarded by store per month with explanations of variations (‘variation
analysis’). For example, similar proportions (not exceeding 1% of revenue) of points in each month might be
expected by store – possibly increasing following any promotion of the ‘loyalty’ scheme.
Tutorial note: Within a close community, for example, a high proportion of customers might be expected to sign
up for the reward scheme. However, in big cities, where a large proportion of the customers might be transitory
(e.g. tourists or other visitors) the proportion may be much lower.
■ Tests of detail on a sample of transactions with customers undertaken at store visits. For example, for a sample of
copy till receipts:
– check the arithmetic accuracy of points awarded (1 per $1 spent + special offers);
– agree points awarded for special offers to that week’s special offers;
– for cash discounts taken confirm the conversion of points is against the opening balance of points awarded
(not against purchases just made).

正确答案：
5 FOX & STEEPLE – THREE AUDIT ASSIGNMENTS
(i) Threats to independence
Self-interest
Tutorial note: This threat arises when a firm or a member of the audit team could benefit from a financial interest in, or
other self-interest conflict with, an assurance client.
■ A self-interest threat could potentially arise in respect of any (or all) of these assignments as, regardless of any fee
restrictions (e.g. per IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’), the auditor is remunerated by clients for
services provided.
■ This threat is likely to be greater for Huggins Co (larger/listed) and Gray Co (requires other services) than for Blythe Co
(audit a statutory necessity).
■ The self-interest threat may be greatest for Huggins Co. As a company listed on a recognised stock exchange it may
give prestige and credibility to Fox & Steeple (though this may be reciprocated). Fox & Steeple could be pressurised into
taking evasive action to avoid the loss of a listed client (e.g. concurring with an inappropriate accounting treatment).
Self-review
Tutorial note: This arises when, for example, any product or judgment of a previous engagement needs to be re-evaluated
in reaching conclusions on the audit engagement.
■ This threat is also likely to be greater for Huggins and Gray where Fox & Steeple is providing other (non-audit) services.
■ A self-review threat may be created by Fox & Steeple providing Huggins with a ‘thorough examination’ of its computerised
systems if it involves an extension of the procedures required to conduct an audit in accordance with International
Standards on Auditing (ISAs).
■ Appropriate safeguards must be put in place if Fox & Steeple assists Huggins in the performance of internal audit
activities. In particular, Fox & Steeple’s personnel must not act (or appear to act) in a capacity equivalent to a member
of Huggins’ management (e.g. reporting, in a management role, to those charged with governance).
■ Fox & Steeple may provide Gray with accounting and bookkeeping services, as Gray is not a listed entity, provided that
any self-review threat created is reduced to an acceptable level. In particular, in giving technical advice on financial
reporting, Fox & Steeple must take care not to make managerial decisions such as determining or changing journal
entries without obtaining Gray’s approval.
■ Taxation services comprise a broad range of services, including compliance, planning, provision of formal taxation
opinions and assistance in the resolution of tax disputes. Such assignments are generally not seen to create threats to
independence.
Tutorial note: It is assumed that the provision of tax services is permitted in the jurisdiction (i.e. that Fox and Steeple
are not providing such services if prohibited).
■ The due diligence reviews for Gray may create a self-review threat (e.g. on the fair valuation of net assets acquired).
However, safeguards may be available to reduce these threats to an acceptable level.
■ If staff involved in providing other services are also assigned to the audit, their work should be reviewed by more senior
staff not involved in the provision of the other services (to the extent that the other service is relevant to the audit).
■ The reporting lines of any staff involved in the audit of Huggins and the provision of other services for Huggins should
be different. (Similarly for Gray.)
Familiarity
Tutorial note: This arises when, by virtue of a close relationship with an audit client (or its management or employees) an
audit firm (or a member of the audit team) becomes too sympathetic to the client’s interests.
■ Long association of a senior member of an audit team with an audit client may create a familiarity threat. This threat
is likely to be greatest for Huggins, a long-standing client. It may also be significant for Gray as Fox & Steeple have had
dealings with this client for seven years now.
■ As Blythe is a new audit client this particular threat does not appear to be relevant.
■ Senior personnel should be rotated off the Huggins and Gray audit teams. If this is not possible (for either client), an
additional professional accountant who was not a member of the audit team should be required to independently review
the work done by the senior personnel.
■ The familiarity threat of using the same lead engagement partner on an audit over a prolonged period is particularly
relevant to Huggins, which is now a listed entity. IFAC’s ‘Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants’ requires that the
lead engagement partner should be rotated after a pre-defined period, normally no more than seven years. Although it
might be time for the lead engagement partner of Huggins to be changed, the current lead engagement partner may
continue to serve for the 2006 audit.
Tutorial note: Two additional years are permitted when an existing client becomes listed, since it may not be in the
client’s best interests to have an immediate rotation of engagement partner.
Intimidation
Tutorial note: This arises when a member of the audit team may be deterred from acting objectively and exercising
professional skepticism by threat (actual or perceived), from the audit client.
■ This threat is most likely to come from Blythe as auditors are threatened with a tendering process to keep fees down.
■ Peter may have already applied pressure to reduce inappropriately the extent of audit work performed in order to reduce
fees, by stipulating that there should not be an interim audit.
■ The audit senior allocated to Blythe will need to be experienced in standing up to client management personnel such as
Peter.
Tutorial note: ‘Correct’ classification under ‘ethical’, ‘other professional’, ‘practical’ or ‘staff implications’ is not as important
as identifying the matters.
(ii) Other professional and practical matters
Tutorial note: ‘Other professional’ includes quality control.
■ The experience of staff allocated to each assignment should be commensurate with the assessment of associated risk.
For example, there may be a risk that insufficient audit evidence is obtained within the budget for the audit of Blythe.
Huggins, as a listed client, carries a high reputational risk.
■ Sufficient appropriate staff should be allocated to each audit to ensure adequate quality control (in particular in the
direction, supervision, review of each assignment). It may be appropriate for a second partner to be assigned to carry
out a ‘hot review’ (before the auditor’s report is signed) of:
– Blythe, because it is the first audit of a new client; and
– Huggins, as it is listed.
■ Existing clients (Huggins and Gray) may already have some expectation regarding who should be assigned to their
audits. There is no reason why there should not be some continuity of staff providing appropriate safeguards are put in
place (e.g. to overcome any familiarity threat).
■ Senior staff assigned to Blythe should be alerted to the need to exercise a high degree of professional skepticism (in the
light of Peter’s attitude towards the audit).
■ New staff assigned to Huggins and Gray would perhaps be less likely to assume unquestioned honesty than staff
previously involved with these audits.
Logistics (practical)
■ All three assignments have the same financial year end, therefore there will be an element of ‘competition’ for the staff
to be assigned to the year-end visits and final audit assignments. As a listed company, Huggins is likely to have the
tightest reporting deadline and so have a ‘priority’ for staff.
■ Blythe is a local and private company. Staff involved in the year-end visit (e.g. to attend the physical inventory count)
should also be involved in the final audit. As this is a new client, staff assigned to this audit should get involved at every
stage to increase their knowledge and understanding of the business.
■ Huggins is a national operation and may require numerous staff to attend year-end procedures. It would not be expected
that all staff assigned to year-end visits should all be involved in the final audit.
Time/fee/staff budgets
■ Time budgets will need to be prepared for each assignment to determine manpower requirements (and to schedule audit
work).
(iii) Implications for allocating staff
■ Fox & Steeple should allocate staff so that those providing other services to Huggins and Gray (that may create a selfreview
threat) do not participate in the audit engagement.
Competence and due care (Qualifications/Specialisation)
■ All audit assignments will require competent staff.
■ Huggins will require staff with an in-depth knowledge of their computerised system.
■ Gray will require senior audit staff to be experienced in financial reporting matters specific to communications and
software solutions (e.g. in revenue recognition issues and accounting for internally-generated intangible assets).
■ Specialists providing tax services and undertaking the due diligence reviews for Gray may not be required to have any
involvement in the audit assignment.