考生收藏!21年ACCA备考经验来了

正确答案：
(b) Tiltman Co
Tiltman’s total assets at 31 March 2006 represent 29% (16·1/55·2 × 100) of Johnston’s total assets. The subsidiary is
therefore material to Johnston’s consolidated financial statements.
Tutorial note: Tiltman’s profit for the year is not relevant as the acquisition took place just before the year end and will
therefore have no impact on the consolidated income statement. Calculations of the effect on consolidated profit before
taxation are therefore inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(i) Inventory overvaluation
This should have been written off to the income statement in the year to 31 March 2005 and not spread over three
years (contrary to IAS 2 ‘Inventories’).
At 31 March 2006 inventory is overvalued by $0·9m. This represents all Tiltmans’s profit for the year and 5·6% of
total assets and is material. At 31 March 2005 inventory was materially overvalued by $1·8m ($1·7m reported profit
should have been a $0·1m loss).
Tutorial note: 1/3 of the overvaluation was written off in the prior period (i.e. year to 31 March 2005) instead of $2·7m.
That the prior period’s auditor’s report was unmodified means that the previous auditor concurred with an incorrect
accounting treatment (or otherwise gave an inappropriate audit opinion).
As the matter is material a prior period adjustment is required (IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’). $1·8m should be written off against opening reserves (i.e. restated as at 1 April 2005).
(ii) Restructuring provision
$2·3m expense has been charged to Tiltman’s profit and loss in arriving at a draft profit of $0·7m. This is very material.
(The provision represents 14·3% of Tiltman’s total assets and is material to the balance sheet date also.)
The provision for redundancies and onerous contracts should not have been made for the year ended 31 March 2006
unless there was a constructive obligation at the balance sheet date (IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’). So, unless the main features of the restructuring plan had been announced to those affected (i.e.
redundancy notifications issued to employees), the provision should be reversed. However, it should then be disclosed
as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’).
Given the short time (less than one month) between acquisition and the balance sheet it is very possible that a
constructive obligation does not arise at the balance sheet date. The relocation in May was only part of a restructuring
(and could be the first evidence that Johnston’s management has started to implement a restructuring plan).
There is a risk that goodwill on consolidation of Tiltman may be overstated in Johnston’s consolidated financial
statements. To avoid the $2·3 expense having a significant effect on post-acquisition profit (which may be negligible
due to the short time between acquisition and year end), Johnston may have recognised it as a liability in the
determination of goodwill on acquisition.
However, the execution of Tiltman’s restructuring plan, though made for the year ended 31 March 2006, was conditional
upon its acquisition by Johnston. It does not therefore represent, immediately before the business combination, a
present obligation of Johnston. Nor is it a contingent liability of Johnston immediately before the combination. Therefore
Johnston cannot recognise a liability for Tiltman’s restructuring plans as part of allocating the cost of the combination
(IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’).
Tiltman’s auditor’s report
The following adjustments are required to the financial statements:
■ restructuring provision, $2·3m, eliminated;
■ adequate disclosure of relocation as a non-adjusting post balance sheet event;
■ current period inventory written down by $0·9m;
■ prior period inventory (and reserves) written down by $1·8m.
Profit for the year to 31 March 2006 should be $3·9m ($0·7 + $0·9 + $2·3).
If all these adjustments are made the auditor’s report should be unmodified. Otherwise, the auditor’s report should be
qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of disagreement. If none of the adjustments are made, the qualification should still be
‘except for’ as the matters are not pervasive.
Johnston’s auditor’s report
If Tiltman’s auditor’s report is unmodified (because the required adjustments are made) the auditor’s report of Johnston
should be similarly unmodified. As Tiltman is wholly-owned by Johnston there should be no problem getting the
adjustments made.
If no adjustments were made in Tiltman’s financial statements, adjustments could be made on consolidation, if
necessary, to avoid modification of the auditor’s report on Johnston’s financial statements.
The effect of these adjustments on Tiltman’s net assets is an increase of $1·4m. Goodwill arising on consolidation (if
any) would be reduced by $1·4m. The reduction in consolidated total assets required ($0·9m + $1·4m) is therefore
the same as the reduction in consolidated total liabilities (i.e. $2·3m). $2·3m is material (4·2% consolidated total
assets). If Tiltman’s financial statements are not adjusted and no adjustments are made on consolidation, the
consolidated financial position (balance sheet) should be qualified ‘except for’. The results of operations (i.e. profit for
the period) should be unqualified (if permitted in the jurisdiction in which Johnston reports).
Adjustment in respect of the inventory valuation may not be required as Johnston should have consolidated inventory
at fair value on acquisition. In this case, consolidated total liabilities should be reduced by $2·3m and goodwill arising
on consolidation (if any) reduced by $2·3m.
Tutorial note: The effect of any possible goodwill impairment has been ignored as the subsidiary has only just been
acquired and the balance sheet date is very close to the date of acquisition.

正确答案：
(b) (i) One company may have revalued its assets while the other has not.
(ii) Accounting policies and estimation techniques may differ. For example, one company may use higher depreciation rates
than the other.
(iii) The use of historical cost accounting may distort the capital and profit of the two companies in different ways.
Other answers considered on their merits.

正确答案：
(a) Evidence of trading
[Client address]
[Own address]
[Date]
Dear Bob,
I note that you have been selling some books in order to raise some extra income. While you believe that the sums are not
taxable, I believe that there may be a risk of the book sales being treated as a trade, and therefore taxable under Schedule D
Case I. We need to refer to guidance in the form. of a set of principles known as the ‘badges of trade’. These help determine
whether or not a trade exists, and need to be looked at in their entirety. The badges are as follows.
1. The subject matter
Some assets can be enjoyed by themselves as an investment, while others (such as large amounts of aircraft linen) are
clearly not. It is likely that such assets are acquired as trading stock, and are therefore a sign of trading. Sporting books
can be an investment, and so this test is not conclusive.
2. Frequency of transactions
Where transactions are frequent (not one-offs), this suggests trading. You have sold several books, which might suggest
trading, although you have only done this for a short period - between one and two years.
3. Length of ownership
Where items are bought and sold soon afterwards, this indicates trading. You bought your books in the 1990s, and the
length of time between acquisition and sale would not suggest trading.
4. Supplementary work and marketing
You are actively marketing the books on your internet website, which is an indication of trading.
5. Profit motive
A motive to make profit suggests trading activity. You sold the books to raise funds for your property business, and not
to make a profit as such, which suggests that your motive was to raise cash, and not make profits.
6. The way in which the asset sold was acquired.
Selling assets which were acquired unintentionally (such as a gift) is not usually seen as trading. You acquired the books
for your collection over a period of time, and while these were intentional acquisitions, the reasons for doing so were for
your personal pleasure.
By applying all of these tests, it should be possible to argue that you were not trading, merely selling some assets in
order to generate short-term cash for your business.
The asset disposals will be taxed under the capital gain tax rules, but as the books are chattels and do not form. part of
a set, they will be exempt from capital gains tax.
Yours sincerely
A N. Accountant