你知道如何让四大成为你的行业跳板吗？速来了解一下吧！

正确答案：
(b) (i) Enquiries in respect of the external valuer
Enquiries would need to be made for two main reasons, firstly to determine the competence, and secondly the objectivity
of the valuer. ISA 620 Using the Work of an Expert contains guidance in this area.
Competence
Enquiries could include:
– Is the valuer a member of a recognised professional body, for example a nationally or internationally recognised
institute of registered surveyors?
– Does the valuer possess any necessary licence to carry out valuations for companies?
– How long has the valuer been a member of the recognised body, or how long has the valuer been licensed under
that body?
– How much experience does the valuer have in providing valuations of the particular type of investment properties
held by Poppy Co?
– Does the valuer have specific experience of evaluating properties for the purpose of including their fair value within
the financial statements?
– Is there any evidence of the reputation of the valuer, e.g. professional references, recommendations from other
companies for which a valuation service has been provided?
– How much experience, if any, does the valuer have with Poppy Co?
Using the above enquiries, the auditor is trying to form. an opinion as to the relevance and reliability of the valuation
provided. ISA 500 Audit Evidence requires that the auditor gathers evidence that is both sufficient and appropriate. The
auditor needs to ensure that the fair values provided by the valuer for inclusion in the financial statements have been
arrived at using appropriate knowledge and skill which should be evidenced by the valuer being a member of a
professional body, and, if necessary, holding a licence under that body.
It is important that the fair values have been arrived at using methods allowed under IAS 40 Investment Property. If any
other valuation method has been used then the value recognised in the statement of financial position may not be in
accordance with financial reporting standards. Thus it is important to understand whether the valuer has experience
specifically in providing valuations that comply with IAS 40, and how many times the valuer has appraised properties
similar to those owned by Poppy Co.
In gauging the reliability of the fair value, the auditor may wish to consider how Poppy Co decided to appoint this
particular valuer, e.g. on the basis of a recommendation or after receiving references from companies for which
valuations had previously been provided.
It will also be important to consider how familiar the valuer is with Poppy Co’s business and environment, as a way to
assess the reliability and appropriateness of any assumptions used in the valuation technique.
Objectivity
Enquiries could include:
– Does the valuer have any financial interest in Poppy Co, e.g. shares held directly or indirectly in the company?
– Does the valuer have any personal relationship with any director or employee of Poppy Co?
– Is the fee paid for the valuation service reasonable and a fair, market based price?
With these enquiries, the auditor is gaining assurance that the valuer will perform. the valuation from an independent
point of view. If the valuer had a financial interest in Poppy Co, there would be incentive to manipulate the valuation in
a way best suited to the financial statements of the company. Equally if the valuer had a personal relationship with a
senior member of staff at Poppy Co, the valuer may feel pressured to give a favourable opinion on the valuation of the
properties.
The level of fee paid is important. It should be commensurate with the market rate paid for this type of valuation. If the
valuer was paid in excess of what might be considered a normal fee, it could indicate that the valuer was encouraged,
or even bribed, to provide a favourable valuation.

正确答案：

(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).

(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.

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.

正确答案：B
430,000 x 5% = 21,500 – 18,000 + 28,000