ACCA考试F4考试试题练习及答案（1）

(a) An assistant of yours has been criticised over a piece of assessed work that he produced for his study course for giving the definition of a non-current asset as ‘a physical asset of substantial cost, owned by the company, which will last longer than one year’.

Required:

Provide an explanation to your assistant of the weaknesses in his definition of non-current assets when

compared to the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) view of assets. (4 marks)

(b) The same assistant has encountered the following matters during the preparation of the draft financial statements of Darby for the year ending 30 September 2009. He has given an explanation of his treatment of them.

(i) Darby spent $200,000 sending its staff on training courses during the year. This has already led to an

improvement in the company’s efficiency and resulted in cost savings. The organiser of the course has stated that the benefits from the training should last for a minimum of four years. The assistant has therefore treated the cost of the training as an intangible asset and charged six months’ amortisation based on the average date during the year on which the training courses were completed. (3 marks)

(ii) During the year the company started research work with a view to the eventual development of a new

processor chip. By 30 September 2009 it had spent $1·6 million on this project. Darby has a past history

of being particularly successful in bringing similar projects to a profitable conclusion. As a consequence the

assistant has treated the expenditure to date on this project as an asset in the statement of financial position.

Darby was also commissioned by a customer to research and, if feasible, produce a computer system to

install in motor vehicles that can automatically stop the vehicle if it is about to be involved in a collision. At

30 September 2009, Darby had spent $2·4 million on this project, but at this date it was uncertain as to

whether the project would be successful. As a consequence the assistant has treated the $2·4 million as an

expense in the income statement. (4 marks)

(iii) Darby signed a contract (for an initial three years) in August 2009 with a company called Media Today to

install a satellite dish and cabling system to a newly built group of residential apartments. Media Today will

provide telephone and television services to the residents of the apartments via the satellite system and pay

Darby $50,000 per annum commencing in December 2009. Work on the installation commenced on

1 September 2009 and the expenditure to 30 September 2009 was $58,000. The installation is expected

to be completed by 31 October 2009. Previous experience with similar contracts indicates that Darby will

make a total profit of $40,000 over the three years on this initial contract. The assistant correctly recorded

the costs to 30 September 2009 of $58,000 as a non-current asset, but then wrote this amount down to

$40,000 (the expected total profit) because he believed the asset to be impaired.

The contract is not a finance lease. Ignore discounting. (4 marks)

Required:

For each of the above items (i) to (iii) comment on the assistant’s treatment of them in the financial

statements for the year ended 30 September 2009 and advise him how they should be treated under

International Financial Reporting Standards.

Note: the mark allocation is shown against each of the three items above.

1 The board of Worldwide Minerals (WM) was meeting for the last monthly meeting before the publication of the yearend

results. There were two points of discussion on the agenda. First was the discussion of the year-end results;

second was the crucial latest minerals reserves report.

WM is a large listed multinational company that deals with natural minerals that are extracted from the ground,

processed and sold to a wide range of industrial and construction companies. In order to maintain a consistent supply

of minerals into its principal markets, an essential part of WM’s business strategy is the seeking out of new sources

and the measurement of known reserves. Investment analysts have often pointed out that WM’s value rests principally

upon the accuracy of its reserve reports as these are the best indicators of future cash flows and earnings. In order to

support this key part of its strategy, WM has a large and well-funded geological survey department which, according

to the company website, contains ‘some of the world’s best geologists and minerals scientists’. In its investor relations

literature, the company claims that:

‘our experts search the earth for mineral reserves and once located, they are carefully measured so that the company

can always report on known reserves. This knowledge underpins market confidence and keeps our customers

supplied with the inventory they need. You can trust our reserve reports – our reputation depends on it!’

At the board meeting, the head of the geological survey department, Ranjana Tyler, reported that there was a problem

with the latest report because one of the major reserve figures had recently been found to be wrong. The mineral in

question, mallerite, was WM’s largest mineral in volume terms and Ranjana explained that the mallerite reserves in

a deep mine in a certain part of the world had been significantly overestimated. She explained that, based on the

interim minerals report, the stock market analysts were expecting WM to announce known mallerite reserves of

4·8 billion tonnes. The actual figure was closer to 2·4 billion tonnes. It was agreed that this difference was sufficient

to affect WM’s market value, despite the otherwise good results for the past year. Vanda Monroe, the finance director,

said that the share price reflects market confidence in future earnings. She said that an announcement of an incorrect

estimation like that for mallerite would cause a reduction in share value. More importantly for WM itself, however, it

could undermine confidence in the geological survey department. All agreed that as this was strategically important

for the company, it was a top priority to deal with this problem.

Ranjana explained how the situation had arisen. The major mallerite mine was in a country new to WM’s operations.

The WM engineer at the mine said it was difficult to deal with some local people because, according to the engineer,

‘they didn’t like to give us bad news’. The engineer explained that when the mine was found to be smaller than

originally thought, he was not told until it was too late to reduce the price paid for the mine. This was embarrassing

and it was agreed that it would affect market confidence in WM if it was made public.

The board discussed the options open to it. The chairman, who was also a qualified accountant, was Tim Blake. He

began by expressing serious concern about the overestimation and then invited the board to express views freely. Gary

Howells, the operations director, said that because disclosing the error to the market would be so damaging, it might

be best to keep it a secret and hope that new reserves can be found in the near future that will make up for the

shortfall. He said that it was unlikely that this concealment would be found out as shareholders trusted WM and they

had many years of good investor relations to draw on. Vanda Monroe, the finance director, reminded the board that

the company was bound to certain standards of truthfulness and transparency by its stock market listing. She pointed

out that they were constrained by codes of governance and ethics by the stock market and that colleagues should be

aware that WM would be in technical breach of these if the incorrect estimation was concealed from investors. Finally,

Martin Chan, the human resources director, said that the error should be disclosed to the investors because he would

not want to be deceived if he were an outside investor in the company. He argued that whatever the governance codes

said and whatever the cost in terms of reputation and market value, WM should admit its error and cope with

whatever consequences arose. The WM board contains three non-executive directors and their views were also

invited.

At the preliminary results presentation some time later, one analyst, Christina Gonzales, who had become aware of

the mallerite problem, asked about internal audit and control systems, and whether they were adequate in such a

reserve-sensitive industry. WM’s chairman, Tim Blake, said that he intended to write a letter to all investors and

analysts in the light of the mallerite problem which he hoped would address some of the issues that Miss Gonzales

had raised.

Required:

(a) Define ‘transparency’ and evaluate its importance as an underlying principle in corporate governance and in

relevant and reliable financial reporting. Your answer should refer to the case as appropriate. (10 marks)

Under certain circumstances, profits made on transactions between members of a group need to be eliminated from the consolidated financial statements under IFRS.

Which of the following statements about intra-group profits in consolidated financial statements is/are correct?

(i) The profit made by a parent on the sale of goods to a subsidiary is only realised when the subsidiary sells the goods to a third party

(ii) Eliminating intra-group unrealised profits never affects non-controlling interests

(iii) The profit element of goods supplied by the parent to an associate and held in year-end inventory must be eliminated in full

A.(i) only

B.(i) and (ii)

C.(ii) and (iii)

D.(iii) only

(b) Calculate the inheritance tax (IHT) liability arising as a result of Christopher’s death. (11 marks)