ACCA考试F3考试模拟试题(2020-08-13)

正确答案：
(b) The main disagreement over a shift to fair value measurement is the debate over relevance versus reliability. It is argued that
historical cost financial statements are not relevant because they do not provide information about current exchange values
for the entity’s assets which to some extent determine the value of the shares of the entity. However, the information provided
by fair values may be unreliable because it may not be based on arm’s-length transactions. Proponents of fair value
accounting argue that this measurement is more relevant to decision makers even if it is less reliable and would produce
balance sheets that are more representative of a company’s value. However it can be argued that relevant information that is
unreliable is of no use to an investor. One advantage of historical cost financial information is that it produces earnings
numbers that are not based on appraisals or other valuation techniques. Therefore, the income statement is less likely to be
subject to manipulation by management. In addition, historical cost balance sheet figures comprise actual purchase prices,
not estimates of current values that can be altered to improve various financial ratios. Because historical cost statements rely
less on estimates and more on ‘hard’ numbers, it can be said that historical cost financial statements are more reliable than
fair value financial statements. Furthermore, fair value measurements may be less reliable than historical costs measures
because fair value accounting provides management with the opportunity to manipulate the reported profit for the period.
Developing reliable methods of measuring fair value so that investors trust the information reported in financial statements is
critical.
Fair value measurement could be said to be more relevant than historical cost as it is based on market values and not entity
specific measurement on initial recognition, so long as fair values can be reliably measured. Generally the fair value of the
consideration given or received (effectively historical cost) also represents the fair value of the item at the date of initial
recognition. However there are many cases where significant differences between historical cost and fair value can arise on
initial recognition.
Historical cost does not purport to measure the value received. It cannot be assumed that the price paid can be recovered in
the market place. Hence the need for some additional measure of recoverable value and impairment testing of assets.
Historical cost can be an entity specific measurement. The recorded historical cost can be lower or higher than its fair value.
For example the valuation of inventory is determined by the costing method adopted by the entity and this can vary from
entity to entity. Historical cost often requires the allocation of costs to an asset or liability. These costs are attributed to assets,
liabilities and expenses, and are often allocated arbitrarily. An example of this is self constructed assets. Rules set out in
accounting standards help produce some consistency of historical cost measurements but such rules cannot improve
representational faithfulness.
Another problem with historical cost arises as regards costs incurred prior to an asset being recognised. Historical costs
recorded from development expenditure cannot be capitalised if they are incurred prior to the asset meeting the recognition
criteria in IAS38 ‘Intangible Assets’. Thus the historical cost amount does not represent the fair value of the consideration
given to create the asset.
The relevance of historical cost has traditionally been based on a cost/revenue matching principle. The objective has been to
expense the cost of the asset when the revenue to which the asset has contributed is recognised. If the historical cost of the
asset differs from its fair value on initial recognition then the matching process in future periods becomes arbitrary. The
measurement of assets at fair value will enhance the matching objective. Historical cost may have use in predicting future
net reported income but does not have any necessary implications for future cash flows. Fair value does embody the market’s
expectations for those future cash flows.
However, historical cost is grounded in actual transaction amounts and has existed for many years to the extent that it is
supported by practical experience and familiarity. Historical cost is accepted as a reliable measure especially where no other
relevant measurement basis can be applied.

正确答案：
(b) Advice on payments
■ As compared with (a) there is no obvious tax issue. Xalam is not overstating expenditure for tax purposes.
■ The payments being made for security consultancy services amount to a bribe. Corruption and bribery (and extortion)
are designated categories of money laundering offence under ‘The Forty Recommendations’ of the Financial Action Task
Force on Money Laundering (FATF).
■ Xalam clearly benefits from the payments as it receives income from the contract with the major customer. This is
criminal property and possession of it is a money laundering offence.
■ Dedza should consider the seriousness of the disclosure made by the chief executive in the context of domestic law.
■ Dedza should consider its knowledge of import duties etc in the destination country before recommending a course of
action to Xalam.
■ Dedza may be guilty of a money laundering offence if the matter is not reported. If a report to the FIU is considered
necessary then Dedza should encourage Xalam to make voluntary disclosure. If Xalam does not, Dedza will not be in
breach of client confidentiality for reporting knowledge of a suspicious transaction.
Tutorial note: Making a report takes precedence over client confidentiality.

正确答案：

(b) Carrying out a systematic PESTEL analysis is a key step in developing alternative scenarios about the future. Johnson and
Scholes define scenarios as ‘detailed and plausible views of how the business environment of an organisation might develop
in the future based on groupings of key environmental influences and drivers of change about which there is a high level of
uncertainty’. In developing scenarios it is necessary to isolate the key drivers of change, which have the potential to have a
significant impact on the company and are associated with high levels of uncertainty. Development of scenarios enables
managers to share assumptions about the future and the key variables shaping that future. This provides an opportunity for
real organisational learning. They are then in a position to monitor these key variables and amend strategies accordingly. It
is important to note that different stakeholder groups will have different expectations about the future and each may provide
a key input to the process of developing scenarios. By their very nature scenarios should not attempt to allocate probabilities
to the key factors and in so doing creating ‘spurious accuracy’ about those factors. A positive scenario is shown below and

should provide a shared insight into the external factors most likely to have a significant impact on Airtite‘s future strategy.
For most companies operating in global environments the ability to respond flexibly and quickly to macro-environmental
change would seem to be a key capability.
The scenario as illustrated below, clearly could have a major impact on the success or otherwise of Airtite’s strategy for the
future. The key drivers for change would seem to be the link between technology and global emissions, fuel prices and the
stability of the global political environment. Through creating a process which considers the drivers which will have most
impact on Airtite and which are subject to the greatest uncertainty, Airtite will have a greater chance of its strategy adaptingto changing circumstances.

正确答案：
(b) Property is sometimes sold with a degree of continuing involvement by the seller so that the risks and rewards of ownership
have not been transferred. The nature and extent of the buyer’s involvement will determine how the transaction is accounted
for. The substance of the transaction is determined by looking at the transaction as a whole and IAS18 ‘Revenue’ requires
this by stating that where two or more transactions are linked, they should be treated as a single transaction in order to
understand the commercial effect (IAS18 paragraph 13). In the case of the sale of the hotel, theme park and casino, Norman
should not recognise a sale as the company continues to enjoy substantially all of the risks and rewards of the businesses,
and still operates and manages them. Additionally the residual interest in the business reverts back to Norman. Also Norman
has guaranteed the income level for the purchaser as the minimum payment to Conquest will be $15 million a year. The
transaction is in substance a financing arrangement and the proceeds should be treated as a loan and the payment of profits
as interest.
The principles of IAS18 and IFRIC13 ‘Customer Loyalty Programmes’ require that revenue in respect of each separate
component of a transaction is measured at its fair value. Where vouchers are issued as part of a sales transaction and are
redeemable against future purchases, revenue should be reported at the amount of the consideration received/receivable less
the voucher’s fair value. In substance, the customer is purchasing both goods or services and a voucher. The fair value of the
voucher is determined by reference to the value to the holder and not the cost to the issuer. Factors to be taken into account
when estimating the fair value, would be the discount the customer obtains, the percentage of vouchers that would be
redeemed, and the time value of money. As only one in five vouchers are redeemed, then effectively the hotel has sold goods
worth ($300 + $4) million, i.e. $304 million for a consideration of $300 million. Thus allocating the discount between the
two elements would mean that (300 ÷ 304 x $300m) i.e. $296·1 million will be allocated to the room sales and the balance
of $3·9 million to the vouchers. The deferred portion of the proceeds is only recognised when the obligations are fulfilled.
The recognition of government grants is covered by IAS20 ‘Accounting for government grants and disclosure of government
assistance’. The accruals concept is used by the standard to match the grant received with the related costs. The relationship
between the grant and the related expenditure is the key to establishing the accounting treatment. Grants should not be
recognised until there is reasonable assurance that the company can comply with the conditions relating to their receipt and
the grant will be received. Provision should be made if it appears that the grant may have to be repaid.
There may be difficulties of matching costs and revenues when the terms of the grant do not specify precisely the expense
towards which the grant contributes. In this case the grant appears to relate to both the building of hotels and the creation of
employment. However, if the grant was related to revenue expenditure, then the terms would have been related to payroll or
a fixed amount per job created. Hence it would appear that the grant is capital based and should be matched against the
depreciation of the hotels by using a deferred income approach or deducting the grant from the carrying value of the asset
(IAS20). Additionally the grant is only to be repaid if the cost of the hotel is less than $500 million which itself would seem
to indicate that the grant is capital based. If the company feels that the cost will not reach $500 million, a provision should
be made for the estimated liability if the grant has been recognised.