看过来！带你了解ACCA和澳洲CPA如何选择！

正确答案：
(b) Revaluation of owned premises
(i) Matters
■ The revaluations are clearly material as $1·7 million, $5·4 million and $7·1 million represent 5·5% , 17·6% and
23·1% of total assets, respectively.
■ The change in accounting policy, from a cost model to a revaluation model, should be accounted for in accordance
with IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’ (i.e. as a revaluation).
Tutorial note: IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’ does not apply to the initial
application of a policy to revalue assets in accordance with IAS 16.
■ The basis on which the valuations have been carried out, for example, market-based fair value (IAS 16).
■ Independence, qualifications and expertise of valuer(s).
■ IAS 16 does not permit the selective revaluation of assets thus the whole class of premises should have been
revalued.
■ The valuations of properties after the year end are adjusting events (i.e. providing additional evidence of conditions
existing at the year end) per IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’.
Tutorial note: It is ‘now’ still less than three months after the year end so these valuations can reasonably be
expected to reflect year-end values.
■ If $5·4 million is a net amount of surpluses and deficits it should be grossed up so that the credit to equity reflects
the sum of the surpluses with any deficits being expensed through profit and loss (IAS 36 ‘Impairment of Assets’).
■ The revaluation exercise is incomplete. If the revaluations on the remaining three properties are expected to be
material and cannot be reasonably estimated for inclusion in the financial statements for the year ended
30 September 2005 perhaps the change in policy should be deferred for a year.
■ Depreciation for the year should have been calculated on cost as usual to establish carrying amount before
revaluation.
■ Any premises held under finance leases should be similarly revalued.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A schedule of depreciated cost of owned premises extracted from the non-current asset register.
■ Calculation of difference between valuation and depreciated cost by property. Separate summation of surpluses
and deficits.
■ Copy of valuation certificate for each property.
■ Physical inspection of properties with largest surpluses (including the two valued before the year end) to confirm
condition.
■ Extracts from local property guides/magazines indicating a range of values of similarly styled/sized properties.
■ Separate presentation of the revaluation surpluses (gross) in:
– the statement of changes in equity; and
– reconciliation of carrying amount at the beginning and end of the period.
■ IAS 16 disclosures in the notes to the financial statements including:
– the effective date of revaluation;
– whether an independent valuer was involved;
– the methods and significant assumptions applied in estimating fair values; and
– the carrying amount that would have been recognised under the cost model.

正确答案：B

正确答案：

 

Aral Ltd owned by Banda
The losses would have to be carried forward and deducted from the trading profits of the year ending 30 June 2010.
Aral Ltd cannot offset the loss in the current period or carry it back as it has no other income or gains.
Aral Ltd owned by Flores Ltd
The two companies will form. a group relief group if Flores Ltd owns at least 75% of the ordinary share capital of Aral
Ltd. The trading losses could be surrendered to Flores Ltd in the year ending 30 June 2008 and the year ending
30 June 2009. The total tax saved would be ￡11,079 ((￡38,696 + ￡19,616) x 19%)
Recommended structure
The Aral business should be established in a company owned by Flores Ltd.
This will maximise the relief available in respect of the trading losses and enable relief to be obtained in the period in
which the losses are incurred.
Tutorial note
The whole of the loss for the period ending 30 June 2008 can be surrendered to Flores Ltd as it is less than that
company’s profit for the corresponding period, i.e. ￡60,000 (￡120,000 x 6/12).

正确答案：
(c) (i) Variation of Ray’s will
The variation by Alvaro of Ray’s will, such that assets are left to Vito and Sophie, will not be regarded as a gift by Alvaro.
Instead, provided the deed states that it is intended to be effective for IHT purposes, it will be as if Ray had left the assets
to the children in his will.
This strategy, known as skipping a generation, will have no effect on the IHT due on Ray’s death but will reduce the
assets owned by Alvaro and thus his potential UK IHT liability. A deed of variation is more tax efficient than Alvaro
making gifts to the children as such gifts would be PETs and IHT may be due if Alvaro were to die within seven years.
The deed of variation must be entered into by 31 January 2009, i.e. within two years of the date of Ray’s death.