会计专业毕业，可以免考ACCA几科呢？

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).

正确答案：
(ii) Procedures to verify the number of serious accidents during 2007 could include the following:
Tutorial note: procedures should focus on the completeness of the disclosure as it is in the interest of Sci-Tech Co to
understate the number of serious accidents.
– Review the accident log book and count the total number of accidents during the year
– Discuss the definition of ‘serious accident’ with the directors and clarify exactly what criteria need to be met to
satisfy the definition
– For serious accidents identified:
? review HR records to determine the amount of time taken off work
? review payroll records to determine the financial amount of sick pay awarded to the employee
? review correspondence with the employee regarding the accident.
Tutorial note: the above will help to clarify that the accident was indeed serious.
– Review board minutes where the increase in the number of serious accidents has been discussed
– Review correspondence with Sci-Tech Co’s legal advisors to ascertain any legal claims made against the company
due to accidents at work
– Enquire as to whether any health and safety visits have been conducted during the year by regulatory bodies, and
review any documentation or correspondence issued to Sci-Tech Co after such visits.
Tutorial note: it is highly likely that in a regulated industry such as pharmaceutical research, any serious accident
would trigger a health and safety inspection from the appropriate regulatory body.
– Discuss the level of accidents with representatives of Sci-Tech Co’s employees to reach an understanding as to
whether accidents sometimes go unreported in the accident log book.

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：
(iii) Warranty provision
■ Agree the principal assumptions in management’s estimate of liabilities under warranties to the terms of warranty
as set out in contracts for sale of vehicle. For example:
– the period for which warranties are given;
– whether for parts replacement only or parts and labour;
– exclusion clauses, perhaps for vehicles sold into a particular market, or used in a specified industry (e.g. filmmaking).
■ Agree the reasonableness of management’s assumptions in the calculation of the provision. For example, the
proportion of vehicles for which claims are made within three months, three to six months, six to nine months, etc.
■ Substantiate the economic reality of the basis of management’s calculations. For example:
– agree the number of vehicles sold each month to a summary sales report;
– agree the calculation of average cost of a repair under warranty to job records;
– test costs of repair on a sample basis (e.g. parts replaced to price lists and labour charges to hours worked
(per job records) and charge-out rates).
■ Consider the reasonableness of management’s estimate by comparing:
– the actual cost of after-date repairs (say for three months) against the appropriate proportion of the provision
made;
– current year provision per vehicle sold against prior provision per vehicle sold.
■ Assess management’s ability to make reliable estimates in this area by comparing last year’s provision with the
actual repairs under warranty costs incurred during the year in respect of sales made in previous years.
Tutorial note: The basis of management’s estimate may tend to overstate or understate the provision required
and should be revised accordingly.
■ Agree the extent to which the provision takes account of (has been reduced by) any recourse to suppliers (e.g. in
respect of faulty parts). For example:
– by reviewing terms of purchases from major suppliers;
– by examining records of replacement parts received free of charge.