2020西安ACCA人才引进政策出炉，快来看看吧！

正确答案：

(d) A provision under IAS37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent assets’ can only be made in relation to the entity’s
restructuring plans where there is both a detailed formal plan in place and the plans have been announced to those affected.
The plan should identify areas of the business affected, the impact on employees and the likely cost of the restructuring and
the timescale for implementation. There should be a short timescale between communicating the plan and starting to
implement it. A provision should not be recognised until a plan is formalised.
A decision to restructure before the balance sheet date is not sufficient in itself for a provision to be recognised. A formal plan
should be announced prior to the balance sheet date. A constructive obligation should have arisen. It arises where there has
been a detailed formal plan and this has raised a valid expectation in the minds of those affected. The provision should only
include direct expenditure arising from the restructuring. Such amounts do not include costs associated with ongoing business
operations. Costs of retraining staff or relocating continuing staff or marketing or investment in new systems and distribution
networks, are excluded. It seems as though in this case a constructive obligation has arisen as there have been detailed formal
plans approved and communicated thus raising valid expectations. The provision can be allowed subject to the exclusion of
the costs outlined above.
Although executory contracts are outside IAS37, it is permissible to recognise a provision that is onerous. Onerous contracts
can result from restructuring plans or on a stand alone basis. A provision should be made for the best estimate of the excess
unavoidable costs under the onerous contract. This estimate should assess any likely level of future income from new sources.
Thus in this case, the rental income from sub-letting the building should be taken into account. The provision should be

正确答案：
(ii) Recycling is an issue for both the current performance statements and the single statement. Recycling occurs where an
item of financial performance is reported in more than one accounting period because the nature of the item has in some
way changed. It raises the question as to whether gains and losses originally reported in one section of the statement
should be reported in another section at a later date. An example would be gains/losses on the retranslation of the net
investment in an overseas subsidiary. These gains could be reported annually on the retranslation of the subsidiary and
then again when the subsidiary was sold.
The main arguments for recycling to take place are as follows:
1. when unrealised items become realised they should be shown again
2. when uncertain measurements become certain they should be reported again
3. all items should be shown in operating or financing activities at some point in time as all items of performance are
ultimately part of operating or financing activities of an entity.
There is no conceptual justification for recycling. Once an item has been recognised in a statement of financial
performance it should not be recognised again in a future period in a different part of that statement. Once an item is
recognised in the statement there is an assumption that it can be reliably measured and therefore it should be recognised
in the appropriate section of the statement with no reason to show it again.
Gains and losses should not be based on the notion of realisation. Realisation may have been a critical event historically
but given the current financial exposures of many entities, such a principle has limited value. A realised gain reflects the
same economic gain as an unrealised gain. Items should be classified in the performance statement on the basis of
characteristics which are more useful than realisation. The effect of realisation is explained better in the cash flow
statement. Realisation means different things in different countries. In Europe and Asia it refers to the amount of
distributable profits but in the USA it refers to capital maintenance. The amount of distributable profits is not an
accounting but a legal issue, and therefore realisation should not be the overriding determinant of the reporting of gains
and losses.
An alternative view could be that an unrealised gain is more subjective than a realised gain. In many countries, realised
gains are recognised for distribution purposes because of their certainty because this gives more economic stability to
the payment of dividends.

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
(b) Audit work on carrying amounts
Tutorial note: This part concerns audit work to be undertaken in respect of non-current tangible assets (the production
animals in the goat herd and certain equipment) and inventories (the for-sale animals and cheese). One of the ‘tests’ for
assessing whether or not a point is worthy of a mark will be whether or not the asset to which it relates is apparent. Points
which are so vague that they could apply to ANY non-current asset for ANY entity, rather than those of GVF are unlikely to
attract many marks, if any, at this level.
(i) Goat herd
■ Physical inspection of the number and condition of animals in the herd and confirming, on a test basis, that they
are tagged (or otherwise ‘branded’ as being owned by GVF).
■ Tests of controls on management’s system of identifying and distinguishing held-for-sale animals (inventory) from
the production herd (depreciable non-current assets).
■ Comparison of GVF’s depreciation policies (including useful lives, depreciation methods and residual values) with
those used by other farming entities.
■ ‘Proof in total’, or other reasonableness check, of the depreciation charge for the herd for the year.
■ Observing test counts or total counts of animals held for sale.
■ Comparing carrying amounts of the kids, according to their weight and age, as at 30 September 2005 with their
market values. (These may approximate to actual invoiced selling prices obtained by GVF.)
Tutorial note: Market value of the production herd could also be compared with its carrying amount to assess possible
impairment. However, if value in use appears to be less than market value the herd should be sold rather than used
for production.