英语不好放弃报考ACCA?51题库考试学习网来告诉你答案

正确答案：
(c) An organisation considering the use of external recruitment consultants would make its decision upon the availability, level and appropriateness of expertise available within the host organisation and its likely effectiveness, together with the cost of using consultants set against the cost of using the organisation’s own staff. The organisation should consider the level of expertise required of potential employees and therefore the appropriate knowledge required of the consultants and the need for impartiality or security which may be of particular importance for some organisations. In addition, the views of internal staff as to the likely effect of using outside consultants must be considered, as is the effect the use of consultants might have on the need to develop expertise within the organisation.

正确答案：
(c) A joint audit is when two or more audit firms are jointly responsible for giving the audit opinion. This is very common in a
group situation where the principal auditor is appointed jointly with the auditor of a subsidiary to provide a joint opinion on
the subsidiary’s financial statements. There are several advantages and disadvantages in a joint audit being performed.
Advantages
It can be beneficial in terms of audit efficiency for a joint audit to be conducted, especially in the case of a new subsidiary.
In this case, Lead & Co will have built up an understanding of Maxwell Co’s business, systems and controls, and financial
statement issues. It will be time efficient for the two firms of auditors to work together in order for Chien & Co to build up
knowledge of the new subsidiary. This is a key issue, as Chien & Co need to acquire a thorough understanding of the
subsidiary in order to assess any risks inherent in the company which could impact on the overall assessment of risk within
the group. Lead & Co will be able to provide a good insight into the company, and advise Chien & Co of the key risk areas
they have previously identified.
On the practical side, it seems that Maxwell Co is a significant addition to the group, as it is expected to increase operating
facilities by 40%. If Chien & Co were appointed as sole auditors to Maxwell Co it may be difficult for the audit firm to provide
adequate resources to conduct the audit at the same time as auditing the other group companies. A joint audit will allow
sufficient resources to be allocated to the audit of Maxwell Co, assuring the quality of the opinion provided.
If there is a tight deadline, as is common with the audit of subsidiaries, which should be completed before the group audit
commences, then having access to two firms’ resources should enable the audit to be completed in good time.
The audit should also benefit from an improvement in quality. The two audit firms may have different points of view, and
would be able to discuss contentious issues throughout the audit process. In particular, the newly appointed audit team will
have a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and be able to offer new insight to matters identified. It should be easier to challenge management
and therefore ensure that the auditors’ position is taken seriously.
Tutorial note: Candidates may have referred to the recent debate over whether joint audits increase competition in the
profession. In particular, joint audits have been proposed as a way for ‘mid tier’ audit firms to break into the market of
auditing large companies and groups, which at the moment is monopolised by the ‘Big 4’. Although this does not answer
the specific question set, credit will be awarded for demonstration of awareness of this topical issue.
Disadvantages
For the client, it is likely to be more expensive to engage two audit firms than to have the audit opinion provided by one firm.
From a cost/benefit point of view there is clearly no point in paying twice for one opinion to be provided. Despite the audit
workload being shared, both firms will have a high cost for being involved in the audit in terms of senior manager and partner
time. These costs will be passed on to the client within the audit fee.
The two audit firms may use very different audit approaches and terminology. This could make it difficult for the audit firms
to work closely together, negating some of the efficiency and cost benefits discussed above. Problems could arise in deciding
which firm’s method to use, for example, to calculate materiality, design and pick samples for audit procedures, or evaluate
controls within the accounting system. It may be impossible to reconcile two different methods and one firm’s methods may
end up dominating the audit process, which then eliminates the benefit of a joint audit being conducted. It could be time
consuming to develop a ‘joint’ audit approach, based on elements of each of the two firms’ methodologies, time which
obviously would not have been spent if a single firm was providing the audit.
There may be problems for the two audit firms to work together harmoniously. Lead & Co may feel that ultimately they will
be replaced by Chien & Co as audit provider, and therefore could be unwilling to offer assistance and help.
Potentially, problems could arise in terms of liability. In the event of litigation, because both firms have provided the audit
opinion, it follows that the firms would be jointly liable. The firms could blame each other for any negligence which was
discovered, making the litigation process more complex than if a single audit firm had provided the opinion. However, it could
be argued that joint liability is not necessarily a drawback, as the firms should both be covered by professional indemnity
insurance.

正确答案：
(ii) Wholly-owned foreign subsidiary
■ The cash transfer is a non-adjusting post balance sheet event. It indicates that Batik was trading after the balance
sheet date. However, that does not preclude Batik having commenced trading before the year end.
■ The finance director’s oral representation is wholly insufficient evidence with regard to the existence (or otherwise)
of Batik at 30 September 2005. If it existed at the balance sheet date its financial statements should have been
consolidated (unless immaterial).
■ The lack of evidence that might reasonably be expected to be available (e.g. legal papers, registration payments,
etc) suggests a limitation on the scope of the audit.
■ If such evidence has been sought but not obtained then the limitation is imposed by the entity (rather than by
circumstances).
■ Whilst the transaction itself may not be material, the information concerning the existence of Batik may be material
to users and should therefore be disclosed (as a non-adjusting event). The absence of such disclosure, if the
auditor considered necessary, would result in a qualified ‘except for’, opinion.
Tutorial note: Any matter that is considered sufficiently material to be worthy of disclosure as a non-adjusting
event must result in such a qualified opinion if the disclosure is not made.
■ If Batik existed at the balance sheet date and had material assets and liabilities then its non-consolidation would
have a pervasive effect. This would warrant an adverse opinion.
■ Also, the nature of the limitation (being imposed by the entity) could have a pervasive effect if the auditor is
suspicious that other audit evidence has been withheld. In this case the auditor should disclaim an opinion.

正确答案：
(c) Non-consolidated entities under common control
■ Horizontal groups of entities under common control were a significant feature of the Enron and Parmalat business
empires.
■ Such business empires increase audit risk as fraud is often disguised through labyrinthine group structures. Hence
auditors need to understand and confirm the economic purpose of entities within business empires (as well as special
purpose entities (SPEs) and non-trading entities).
■ Horizontal groups fall outside the requirement for the preparation of group accounts. It is not only finance that is offbalance
sheet when controlled entities are excluded from consolidated financial statements.
■ In the absence of consolidated financial statements, users of accounts of entities in horizontal groups have to rely on the
disclosure of related party transactions and control relationships for information about transactions and arrangements
with other group entities. Difficulties faced by auditors include:
? failing to detect related party transactions and control relationships;
? not understanding the substance of transactions with entities under common control;
? excessively creative tax planning;
? the implications of transfer pricing (e.g. failure to recognise profits unrealised at the business empire level);
? a lack of access to relevant confidential information held by others;
? relying on representations made in good faith by those whom the auditors believe manage the company when
control rests elsewhere.
■ Audit work is inevitably increased if an auditor is put upon inquiry to investigate dubious transactions and arrangements.
However, the complexity of business empires across multiple jurisdictions with different auditors may deter auditors from
liaising with other auditors (especially where legal or professional confidentiality considerations prevent this).