ACCA证书的含金量高在哪里?

正确答案：
(c) (i) Relocation costs
Direct assistance
Messier Ltd can bear the cost of certain qualifying relocation costs of Galileo up to a maximum of ￡8,000 without
increasing his UK income tax liability. Qualifying costs include the legal, professional and other fees in relation to the
purchase of a house, the costs of travelling to the UK and the cost of transporting his belongings. The costs must be
incurred before the end of the tax year following the year of the relocation, i.e. by 5 April 2010.
Assistance in the form. of a loan
Messier Ltd can provide Galileo with an interest-free loan of up to ￡5,000 without giving rise to any UK income tax.

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.

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.

正确答案：
(c) Extent of reliance on analytical procedures as audit evidence
Tutorial note: In the requirement ‘… reliance … as audit evidence’ is a direction to consider only substantive analytical
procedures. Answer points concerning planning and review stages were not asked for and earn no marks.
■ Although there is likely to be less reliance on analytical procedures than if this had been an existing audit client, the fact
that this is a new assignment does not preclude placing some reliance on such procedures.
■ Analytical procedures will not be relied on in respect of material items that require 100% testing. For example, additions
to property is likely to represent a very small number of transactions.
■ Analytical procedures alone may provide sufficient audit evidence on line items that are not individually material. For
example, inventory (less than 1/2% revenue and less than 1% total assets) may be shown to be materially correctly
stated through analytical procedures on consumable stores (i.e. fuel, lubricants, materials for servicing vehicles etc).
■ Substantive analytical procedures are best suited to large volume transactions (e.g. revenue, materials expense, staff
costs). If controls over the completeness, accuracy and validity of recording transactions in these areas are effective then
substantive analytical procedures showing that there are no unexpected fluctuations should reduce the need for
substantive detailed tests.
■ The extent of planned use will be dependent on the relationships expected between variables. (e.g. between items of
financial information and between items of financial and non-financial information). For example, if material costs rise
due to an increase in the level of business then a commensurate increase in revenue and staff costs might be expected
also.
■ ‘Proofs in total’ (or reasonableness tests) provide substantive evidence that income statement items are not materially
misstated. In the case of Yates these might be applied to staff costs (number of employees in each category ×
wage/salary rates, grossed up for social security, etc) and finance expense (interest rate × average monthly overdraft
balance).
■ However, such tests may have limited application, if any, if the population is not homogenous and cannot be subdivided.
For example, all the categories of non-current asset have a wide range of useful life. Therefore it would be
difficult/meaningless to apply an ‘average’ depreciation rate to all assets in the class to substantiate the total depreciation
expense for the year. (Although it might highlight a risk of potential over or understatement requiring further
investigation.)
■ Substantive analytical procedures are more likely to be used if there is relevant information available that is being used
by Yates. For example, as fuel costs will be significant, Yates may monitor consumption (e.g. miles per gallon (MPG)).
■ Analytical procedures may supplement alternative procedures that provide evidence regarding the same assertion. For
example, the review of after-date payments to confirm the completeness of trade payables may be supplemented by
calculations of average payment period on a monthly basis.
Tutorial note: Credit will be given for other relevant points drawn from the scenario. For example, the restructuring during
the previous year is likely to have caused fluctuations that may result in less reliance being placed on analytical procedures.