内蒙古考生想知道的ACCA国际会计师考试的几种题型

正确答案：
(c) Choo Wang’s remuneration package
Benefits of PRP
In general terms, performance-related pay serves to align directors’ and shareholders’ interests in that the performancerelated
element can be made to reflect those things held to be important to shareholders (such as financial targets). This, in
turn, serves to motivate directors, especially if they are directly responsible for a cost or revenue/profit budget or centre. The
possibility of additional income serves to motivate directors towards higher performance and this, in turn, can assist in
recruitment and retention. Finally, performance-related pay can increase the board’s control over strategic planning and
implementation by aligning rewards against strategic objectives.
Critical evaluation of Choo Wang’s package
Choo Wang’s package appears to have a number of advantages and shortcomings. It was strategically correct to include some
element of pay linked specifically to Southland success. This will increase Choo’s motivation to make it successful and indeed,
he has said as much – he appears to be highly motivated and aware that additional income rests upon its success. Against
these advantages, it appears that the performance-related component does not take account of, or discount in any way for,
the risk of the Southland investment. The bonus does not become payable on a sliding scale but only on a single payout basis
when the factory reaches an ‘ambitious’ level of output. Accordingly, Choo has more incentive to be accepting of risk with
decisions on the Southland investment than risk averse. This may be what was planned, but such a bias should be pointed
out. Clearly, the company should accept some risk but recklessness should be discouraged. In conclusion, Choo’s PRP
package could have been better designed, especially if the Southland investment is seen as strategically risky.

正确答案：
(c) (i) Audit report implications
Audit procedures have shown that there is a significant level of doubt over Dexter Co’s going concern status. IAS 1
requires that disclosure is made in the financial statements regarding material uncertainties which may cast significant
doubt on the ability of the entity to continue as a going concern. If the directors refuse to disclose the note to the financial
statements, there is a clear breach of financial reporting standards.
In this case the significant uncertainty is caused by not knowing the extent of the future availability of finance needed
to fund operating activities. If the note describing this uncertainty is not provided, the financial statements are not fairly
presented.
The audit report should contain a qualified or an adverse opinion due to the disagreement. The auditors need to make
a decision as to the significance of the non-disclosure. If it is decided that without the note the financial statements are
not fairly presented, and could be considered misleading, an adverse opinion should be expressed. Alternatively, it could
be decided that the lack of the note is material, but not pervasive to the financial statements; then a qualified ‘except
for’ opinion should be expressed.
ISA 570 Going Concern and ISA 701 Modifications to the Independent Auditor’s Report provide guidance on the
presentation of the audit report in the case of a modification. The audit report should include a paragraph which contains
specific reference to the fact that there is a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the entity’s ability
to continue as a going concern. The paragraph should include a clear description of the uncertainties and would
normally be presented immediately before the opinion paragraph.

正确答案：
(b) International Standards on Auditing (ISAs)
The groundwork for an international set of auditing standards began in 1969 with a number of reports published by the
Accountants International Study Group that compared the situation in Canada, the UK, and US. The establishment of the
International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), in 1973, generated calls for a similar body to be set up for auditing.
In the late 1970s the Council of International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) created the International Auditing Practices
Committee (IAPC) as a standing committee of the IFAC Council. (Subsequently the IFAC Board.)
Tutorial note: The IFAC Council was renamed the IFAC Board in May 2000.
The first ISA was issued in 1991. The codified core set released in 1994, which has remained the series to the present day,
has been increasingly accepted by national standard setters and auditors involved in global reporting and cross-border
financing transactions.
In July 2001, IFAC sought comment on the role of IASC3 and the future of ISAs. As a result of the review, in 2002, the IAPC
was renamed the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). IAASB has made available, on its website,
the full text of ISAs since 2003.
Further, the growth of non-audit assurance services has led to the development of a new framework (‘The International
Framework for Assurance Engagements’) effective for assurance reports issued on or after 1 January 2005.
The hope that the take up of ISAs should follow the lead set by International Accounting Standards (IASs), following their
endorsement by IOSCO (the International Organization of Securities Commissions), has been expressed by many professional
bodies including ACCA and FEE (the Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens). FEE has been leading the debate on
the future of ISAs in Europe since 2001.
ISAs provide for the international harmonisation of national standards and the adoption of a global framework approach. As
a member of CCAB (the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies) ACCA is committed to consulting its members on
the adoption of ISAs in the UK, and working with FEE, the European Commission (EC) and others.
In response to the move in the profession, away from the ‘traditional audit risk’ model, to a business risk model, IAASB issued
ISA 315 ‘Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement,’ ISA 330 ‘The
Auditor’s Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks’ and ISA 500 (Revised) ‘Audit Evidence’. These standards (and
conforming amendments) are effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2004.
That is, they will be applicable to financial statements for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005 that in the European
Economic Area (EEA) and elsewhere will be adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) for the first time.
The adoption of ISAs has been welcomed by professional bodies as providing a robust approach to risk, fraud and quality
control that is particularly important in the light of recent events (Enron/Worldcom/Parmalat). For example, ISA 315 provides
additional guidance on the assessment of risks of material misstatement at the financial statement level and at the assertion
level.
Tutorial note: Recent developments could validly be illustrated with reference to other standards. For example, ISA 240
(Revised) ‘The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements’ that became effective from
1 January 2005 has raised auditor awareness of earnings management and the greater need for professional skepticism.
ISA 700 (Revised) ‘The Independent Auditor’s Report on a Complete Set of General Purpose Financial Statements’ is effective
for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2005. This proposed significant changes to
the auditor’s report to help promote consistency in reporting practices worldwide.
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) is in discussion with IAASB about the possible
endorsement of ISAs (similar to its endorsement of IASs).
Practicing professionals must keep themselves up to date on auditing standards if they are to provide quality audits. Failure
to do so could result in negligence claims and/or disciplinary action (e.g. by ACCA’s disciplinary committee). A survey by FEE
has demonstrated that the European accountancy bodies broadly comply with ISAs. However, an earlier survey4 of IFAC
member bodies showed that 14% had some significant differences (usually relating to reporting). IFAC needs to require its
member bodies to act rather than merely encourage implementation. A set of global ethical requirements will help improve
the implementation of ISAs as well as reduce the expectation gap in performing audits of financial statements.