如何备考ACCA考试？那些你不知道的小技巧！

正确答案：
(b) Rate of tax on profits of non-UK resident investee companies
Undistributed profits
The companies will be subject to tax in the countries in which they are resident; this is because of their residency status or
because they have a permanent establishment in that country. Undistributed profits will not be taxed in the UK.
The rate of tax on undistributed profits will therefore be the rate of tax in the country of residency of the respective companies.
Distributed profits with double tax treaty
The dividends received by Acrux Ltd from each of the overseas companies will be grossed up in respect of underlying tax (the
overseas corporation tax paid on the distributed profits) because Acrux Ltd will own at least 10% of the overseas companies.
The gross amount will then be included in Acrux Ltd’s profits chargeable to corporation tax.
The treaty will provide double tax relief in the UK for the overseas tax suffered in respect of each dividend up to a maximum
of the UK tax on the grossed up overseas dividend. As a result of the double tax relief, the overall rate of tax suffered will be
the higher of the UK rate paid by Acrux Ltd and the overseas tax rate borne by the overseas company.
Where the rate of overseas tax in respect of a particular dividend exceeds the rate of corporation tax in the UK, excess foreign
tax will arise. This can be relieved, via onshore pooling, against the UK tax due on those dividends where the rate of tax in
the UK exceeds the rate overseas. This will reduce the overall rate of tax suffered on the total overseas profits of the overseas
companies as a whole.
Distributed profits with no double tax treaty
Where there is no double tax treaty, unilateral double tax relief will be available in the UK. This relief will operate in the same
way as double tax relief under a double tax treaty such that the overall rate of tax on each dividend will be the higher of the
UK rate paid by Acrux Ltd and the overseas rate borne by the overseas company. Relief via onshore pooling will also be
available.

正确答案：
(c) Choo Wang’s remuneration package
Benefits of PRP
In general terms, performance-related pay serves to align directors’ and shareholders’ interests in that the performancerelated
element can be made to reflect those things held to be important to shareholders (such as financial targets). This, in
turn, serves to motivate directors, especially if they are directly responsible for a cost or revenue/profit budget or centre. The
possibility of additional income serves to motivate directors towards higher performance and this, in turn, can assist in
recruitment and retention. Finally, performance-related pay can increase the board’s control over strategic planning and
implementation by aligning rewards against strategic objectives.
Critical evaluation of Choo Wang’s package
Choo Wang’s package appears to have a number of advantages and shortcomings. It was strategically correct to include some
element of pay linked specifically to Southland success. This will increase Choo’s motivation to make it successful and indeed,
he has said as much – he appears to be highly motivated and aware that additional income rests upon its success. Against
these advantages, it appears that the performance-related component does not take account of, or discount in any way for,
the risk of the Southland investment. The bonus does not become payable on a sliding scale but only on a single payout basis
when the factory reaches an ‘ambitious’ level of output. Accordingly, Choo has more incentive to be accepting of risk with
decisions on the Southland investment than risk averse. This may be what was planned, but such a bias should be pointed
out. Clearly, the company should accept some risk but recklessness should be discouraged. In conclusion, Choo’s PRP
package could have been better designed, especially if the Southland investment is seen as strategically risky.

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.