山西省考生：如何利用零散时间学习ACCA？

正确答案：
(ii) Former administrative building
The land and buildings of the former administrative centre are accounted for as separate elements. The demolition of the
building is an indicator of the impairment of the property under IAS36. The building will not generate any future cash flows
and its recoverable amount is zero. Therefore, the carrying value of the building will be written down to zero and the loss
charged to profit or loss in the year to 31 May 2006 when the decision to demolish the building was made. The land value
will be in excess of its carrying amount as the company uses the cost model and land prices are rising. Thus no impairment
charge is recognised in respect of the land.
The demolition costs will be expensed when incurred and a provision for environmental costs recognised when an obligation
arises, i.e. in the financial year to 31 May 2007. It may be that some of these costs could be recognised as site preparation
costs and be capitalised under IAS16.
The land will not meet the criteria set out in IFRS5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’ as a noncurrent
asset which is held for sale. IFRS5 says that a non-current asset should be classified as ‘held for sale’ if its carrying
amount will be recovered principally through a sale transaction rather than through continuing use. However, the non-current
asset must be available for immediate sale and must be actively marketed at its current fair value (amongst other criteria) and
these criteria have not been met in this case.
When the building has been demolished and the site prepared, the land could be considered to be an investment property
and accounted for under IAS40 ‘Investment Property’ where the fair value model allows gains (or losses) to be recognised inprofit or loss for the period.

正确答案：
(b) The relative performance of GBC and TTC is difficult to assess due to the following:
(i) They would appear to have differing objectives. GBC provides free transport for senior citizens and charges lower fares
than TTC. GBC also uses environmentally friendly fuel. Each of these factors inhibits a direct comparison of the two
organisations.
(ii) The organisations are funded differently. It is evident that TTC uses loan finance to fund operations which gives rise to
interest charges which are not incurred by GBC. On the other hand GBC is funded by the government.
(iii) TTC has higher fixed asset values which precipitate much higher depreciation charges.
(iv) There is also a lack of non-financial performance indicators such as the number of on-time arrivals, number of accidents,
complaints re passenger dissatisfaction, staff turnover, adherence to relevant legislation, convenience of pick-up/drop-off
points etc.
The following items of additional information would assist in assessing the financial and operating performance of the two
companies:
(1) The number of staff employed by each organisation would assist in the assessment of the financial and operating
performance. Ratios such as revenue generated per employee and operating costs per employee might provide useful
comparators of financial and operating efficiency.
(2) Safety and accident records of each organisation would give an indication of the reliability and safety afforded to
passengers by each organisation. Passenger safety is of paramount importance to all passenger transport businesses.
(3) Records of late/cancelled buses together with the number of complaints received from the passengers would provide an
indication of the efficiency of the service provided by each organisation.
(4) The accessibility of the services, location of pick-up/drop-off points would provide an indication of the flexibility of service
delivery provided by each organisation.
(5) The comfort, cleanliness and age of the respective bus fleets would provide a further indication of the level of service
quality provided by each organisation.
(6) The fuel emission levels of the buses operated by each organisation would provide an indication of the extent of their
‘social responsibility’.
Notes: (i) Only three items of additional information were required.
(ii) Alternative relevant discussion and examples would be acceptable.

正确答案：
(c) Assessment of three risks
Disruption and resistance by Stop-the-dam. Stop-the-dam seems very determined to delay and disrupt progress as much as
possible. The impact of its activity can be seen on two levels. It is likely that the tunnelling and other ‘human’ disruption will
cause a short-term delay but the more significant impact is that of exposing the lenders. In terms of probability, the case says
that it ‘would definitely be attempting to resist the Giant Dam Project when it started’ but the probability of exposing the
lenders is a much lower probability event if the syndicate membership is not disclosed.
Impact/hazard: low
Probability/likelihood: high
The risk to progress offered by First Nation can probably be considered to be low impact/hazard but high probability. The case
says that it ‘would be unlikely to disrupt the building of the dam’, meaning low impact/hazard, but that ‘it was highly likely
that they would protest’, meaning a high level of probability that the risk event would occur.
Impact: low
Probability: high
There are financing risks as banks seems to be hesitant when it comes to lending to R&M for the project. Such a risk event,
if realised, would have a high potential for disruption to progress as it may leave R&M with working capital financing
difficulties. The impact would be high because the bank may refuse to grant or extend loans if exposed (subject to existing
contractual terms). It is difficult to estimate the probability. Perhaps there will be a range of attitudes by the lending banks
with some more reticent than others (perhaps making it a ‘medium’ probability event).
Impact: medium to high (depending on the reaction of the bank)
Probability: low to medium (depending on how easy it would be to discover the lender)