ACCA证书只考了50分，含金量高吗？

正确答案：
Costs incurred in extending network
The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment should be recognised when
(i) it is probable that future economic benefits associated with the item will flow to the entity, and
(ii) the cost of the item can be measured reliably (IAS16, ‘Property, plant and equipment’ (PPE))
It is necessary to assess the degree of certainty attaching to the flow of economic benefits and the basis of the evidence available
at the time of initial recognition. The cost incurred during the initial feasibility study ($250,000) should be expensed as incurred,
as the flow of economic benefits to Johan as a result of the study would have been uncertain.
IAS16 states that the cost of an item of PPE comprises amongst other costs, directly attributable costs of bringing the asset to the
location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in a manner intended by management (IAS16, para 16).
Examples of costs given in IAS16 are site preparation costs, and installation and assembly costs. The selection of the base station
site is critical for the optimal operation of the network and is part of the process of bringing the network assets to a working
condition. Thus the costs incurred by engaging a consultant ($50,000) to find an optimal site can be capitalised as it is part of
the cost of constructing the network and depreciated accordingly as planning permission has been obtained.
Under IAS17, ‘Leases’, a lease is defined as an agreement whereby the lessor conveys to the lessee, in return for a payment or
series of payments, the right to use an asset for an agreed period of time. A finance lease is a lease that transfers substantially all
the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the leased asset to the lessee. An operating lease is a lease other than a finance
lease. In the case of the contract regarding the land, there is no ownership transfer and the term is not for the major part of the
asset’s life as it is land which has an indefinite economic life. Thus substantially all of the risks and rewards incidental to ownership
have not been transferred. The contract should be treated, therefore, as an operating lease. The payment of $300,000 should be
treated as a prepayment in the statement of financial position and charged to the income statement over the life of the contract on
the straight line basis. The monthly payments will be expensed and no value placed on the lease contract in the statement of
financial position

正确答案：
3 MULLIGAN CO
(a) Matters to be discussed would include the following:
The exact content of the business plan which could include:
– Description of past business performance and key products
– Discussion of the new product
– Evidence of the marketability of the new product
– Cash flow projections
– Capital expenditure forecasts
– Key business assumptions.
The form. of the assurance report that is required – in an assurance engagement the nature and wording of the expected
opinion should be discussed. Webb & Co should clarify that an opinion of ‘negative assurance’ will be required, and whether
this will meet the bank’s lending criteria.
The intended recipient of the report – Webb & Co need to clarify the name and address of the recipient at LCT Bank. For the
limitation of professional liability, it should be clarified that LCT Bank will be the only recipient, and that the assurance opinion
is being used only as part of the bank’s overall lending decision.
Limiting liability – Webb & Co may want to receive in writing a statement that the report is for information purposes only, and
does not give rise to any responsibility, liability, duty or obligation from the firm to the lender.
Deadlines – it should be discussed when the bank need the report. This in turn will be influenced by when Mulligan Co needs
the requested $3 million finance. The bank may need a considerable period of time to assess the request, review the report,
and ensure that their lending criteria have been fully met prior to advancing the finance.
Availability of evidence – Mulligan Co should be made aware that in order to express an opinion on the finance request, they
must be prepared to provide all the necessary paperwork to assist the assurance provider. Evidence is likely to include
discussions with key management, and written representations of discussions may be required.
Professional regulation – Webb & Co should discuss the kind of procedures that will be undertaken, and confirm that they
will be complying with relevant professional guidance, for example:
– ISAE 3000 Assurance Engagements other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information
– ISAE 3400 The Examination of Prospective Financial Information
Engagement administration – any points not yet discussed in detail when deciding to take the assurance engagement should
be finalised at the meeting. These points could include the following:
– Fees – the total fee and billing arrangements must be agreed before any work is carried out
– Personnel – Webb & Co should identify the key personnel who will be involved in the assignment
– Complaints procedures – should be briefly outlined (the complaints procedures in an assurance engagement may differ
from an audit assignment)
– Engagement letter – if not already signed by both Webb & Co and Mulligan Co, the engagement letter should be
discussed and signed at the meeting before any assignment work is conducted.
Tutorial note: the scenario states that Webb & Co have already decided to take the assurance assignment for their existing
client, therefore the answer to this requirement should not focus on client or engagement acceptance procedures.

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.