了解一下，ACCA并不适合所有人群的考试

正确答案：
(b) Directors reluctance to disclose
The directors are likely to have several reasons behind their reluctance to disclose the note as recommended by the audit
manager. The first is that the disclosure of Dexter Co’s poor cash flow position and perilous going concern status may reflect
badly on the directors themselves. The company’s shareholders and other stakeholders will be displeased to see the company
in such a poor position, and the directors will be held accountable for the problems. Of course it may not be the case that
the directors have exercised poor management of the company – the problems could be caused by external influences outside
the control of the directors. However, it is natural that the directors will not want to highlight the situation in order to protect
their own position.
Secondly, the note could itself trigger further financial distress for the company. Dexter Co is trying to raise finance, and it is
probable that the availability of further finance will be detrimentally affected by the disclosure of the company’s financial
problems. In particular, if the cash flow difficulties are highlighted, providers of finance will consider the company too risky
an investment, and are not likely to make funds available for fear of non-repayment. Existing lenders may seek repayment of
their funds in fear that the company may be unable in the future to meet repayments.
In addition, the disclosures could cause operational problems, for example, suppliers may curtail trading relationships as they
become concerned that they will not be paid, or customers may be deterred from purchasing from the company if they feel
that there is no long-term future for the business. Unfortunately the mere disclosure of financial problems can be self-fulfilling,
and cause such further problems for the company that it is pushed into non-going concern status.
The directors may also be concerned that if staff were to hear of this they may worry about the future of the company and
seek alternative employment, which could lead in turn to the loss of key members of staff. This would be detrimental to the
business and trigger further operational problems.
Finally, the reluctance to disclose may be caused by an entirely different reason. The directors could genuinely feel that the
cash flow and operational problems faced by the company do not constitute factors affecting the going concern status. They
may be confident that although a final decision has not been made regarding financing, the finance is likely to be forthcoming,
and therefore there is no long-term material uncertainty over the future of the company. However audit working papers
conclude that there is a significant level of doubt over the going concern status of Dexter Co, and therefore it seems that the
directors may be over optimistic if they feel that there is no significant doubt to be disclosed in the financial statements.

正确答案：
(c) Fines and penalties
(i) Matters
■ $0·1 million represents 5·6% of profit before tax and is therefore material. However, profit has fallen, and
compared with prior year profit it is less than 5%. So ‘borderline’ material in quantitative terms.
■ Prior year amount was three times as much and represented 13·6% of profit before tax.
■ Even though the payments may be regarded as material ‘by nature’ separate disclosure may not be necessary if,
for example, there are no external shareholders.
■ Treatment (inclusion in cost of sales) should be consistent with prior year (‘The Framework’/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of
Financial Statements’).
■ The reason for the fall in expense. For example, whether due to an improvement in meeting health and safety
regulations and/or incomplete recording of liabilities (understatement).
■ The reason(s) for the breaches. For example, Albreda may have had difficulty implementing new guidelines in
response to stricter regulations.
■ Whether expenditure has been adjusted for in the income tax computation (as disallowed for tax purposes).
■ Management’s attitude to health and safety issues (e.g. if it regards breaches as an acceptable operational practice
or cheaper than compliance).
■ Any references to health and safety issues in other information in documents containing audited financial
statements that might conflict with Albreda incurring these costs.
■ Any cost savings resulting from breaches of health and safety regulations would result in Albreda possessing
proceeds of its own crime which may be a money laundering offence.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A schedule of amounts paid totalling $0·1 million with larger amounts being agreed to the cash book/bank
statements.
■ Review/comparison of current year schedule against prior year for any apparent omissions.
■ Review of after-date cash book payments and correspondence with relevant health and safety regulators (e.g. local
authorities) for liabilities incurred before 30 September 2005.
■ Notes in the prior year financial statements confirming consistency, or otherwise, of the lack of separate disclosure.
■ A ‘signed off’ review of ‘other information’ (i.e. directors’ report, chairman’s statement, etc).
■ Written management representation that there are no fines/penalties other than those which have been reflected in
the financial statements.

正确答案：
(b) Late filing of VAT returns
The late filing of two or more VAT returns within the period of one year will give rise to a default surcharge. This occurs when
either
– The return is late and/or
– The payment is late.
Customs & Excise will serve a surcharge liability notice on the taxpayer when a single return is filed late and/or the VAT due
is paid late. The surcharge period will run from the date of notice to the anniversary of the quarter end of the period in which
the trader is in default.
Any further defaults within the surcharge period will extend the surcharge period.
If there is a late payment of VAT in the surcharge period, a surcharge will be levied at the rate of 2% on the first occasion,
rising progressively to a maximum of 15% if there are several defaults. One complete year of correct compliance is necessary
to escape the default surcharge regime.
For Flop Ltd, the surcharge period originally ran to 31 December 2005 but was extended to 31 March 2006 as the second
return is late. This could be extended again if the June return is late. The second default (31 March return) will give rise to
a 2% surcharge, based on the tax paid late of ￡24,000. This gives a surcharge of ￡480. This exceeds the de minimus level
of ￡400, so will be collected.
To avoid a further surcharge, the VAT return to 30 June 2005 should be submitted by 31 July at the latest. This would save
5% x ￡8,250 = ￡412.
In addition, Flop Ltd should obtain a refund of the VAT on the bad debt. Relief is available where;
(i) the debt is more than six months old, and
(ii) the debt has been written off in the creditor’s accounts.
The claim must be made within three years. The amount of VAT repayable is 17·5% of ￡50,000 = ￡8,750. If this is claimed
though the VAT return to 30 June 2005, there should be a net VAT repayment of (￡8,250 - ￡8,750) = ￡500. Even if this
return is submitted late, the fact that no VAT is outstanding means that there will be no surcharge actually payable (as
calculated above), but the surcharge period will nevertheless be extended.