2020年ACCA考试F3-财务会计(基础)复习试题(1)

正确答案：
(b) Benchmarking
Benchmarks enable goals to be set that may be based on either external measures of ‘best practice’ organisations or internal
cross-functional comparisons which exhibit ‘best practice’. A primary aim of the traditional budgeting process is the setting of
realistic targets that can be achieved within the budget period. The setting of realistic targets means that the extent of
underperformance against ‘best practice’ standards loses visibility, and thus short-term financial targets remain the
predominant focus of the traditional budgeting process. It is arguable that because the budgetary reporting system purports
to give managers ‘control’, there is very little real incentive to seek out benchmarks which may be used to raise budgeted
performance targets. Much depends upon the prevailing organisational culture since benchmarking may be viewed as an
attempt by top management to impose impossible targets upon operational managers. The situation is further exacerbated
where organisations do not measure their success relative to their competition.
Balanced scorecard
The Balanced scorecard is often misunderstood as a consequence of the failure by top management to ensure that it is
implemented effectively within the organisation. Thus it may be viewed as the addition of a few non-financial measures to
the conventional budget. In an attempt to overcome this misperception many management teams now establish a
performance-rewards linkage based upon the achievement of Scorecard targets for the forthcoming budget period.
Unfortunately this can precipitate dysfunctional behaviour at every level within the organisation.
Even in situations where the Scorecard has been well-designed and well-implemented it is difficult for it to gain widespread
acceptance. This is because all too often there exists a culture which places a very high value upon the achievement of the
fixed annual targets in order to avoid the loss of status, recognition and rewards.
A well-constructed Scorecard contains a mix of long-term and short-term measures and therefore drives the company in the
direction of medium-term strategic goals which are supported by cross-functional initiatives. On the other hand, the budgeting
process focuses the organisation on the achievement of short-term financial goals supported by the initiatives of individual
departments. Budgets can also act as an impediment to the acceptance of responsibility by local managers for the
achievement of the Scorecard targets. This is often the case in situations where a continued emphasis exists on meeting shortterm
e.g. quarterly targets.
Activity-based models
Traditional budgets show the costs of functions and departments (e.g. staff costs and establishment costs) instead of the costs
of those activities that are performed by people (e.g. receipt of goods inwards, processing and dispatch of orders etc). Thus
managers have no visibility of the real ‘cost drivers’ of their business. In addition, it is probable that a traditional budget
contains a significant amount of non-value-added costs that are not visible to the managers. The annual budget also tends
to fix capacity for the forthcoming budget period thereby undermining the potential of Activity-based management (ABM)
analysis to determine required capacity from a customer demand perspective. Those experienced in the use of ABM
techniques are used to dealing with such problems, however their tasks would be much easier to perform. and their results
made more reliable if these problems were removed.

正确答案：
(c) It would appear that in operating a bus service to the Western region of Geeland that GBC is fulfilling a social objective since
a contribution loss amounting to $38,400 ($230,400 – $268,800) was made as a consequence of operating the route to
the Western region during 2007. As an organisation which is partially funded by the government it is highly probable that
GBC has objectives which differ from those of TTC which is a profit-seeking organisation.
The value of a social service such as the provision of public transport can be quantified, albeit, in non-financial times. It is
possible to apply quantitative measures to the bus service itself, the most obvious ones being the number of passengers
carried and the number of passenger miles travelled.
The cost of the provision of alternative transport to the Western region might also enable a value to be placed on the current
service by GBC.
It might be possible to estimate quantitatively some of the social benefits resulting from the provision of the transport facility
to and from the Western region. For example, GBC could undertake a survey of the population of the Western region in order
to help estimate the extent to which rural depopulation would otherwise have occurred had the transport facility not been
made.
The application of the technique of cost-benefit analysis makes it possible to estimate money values for non-monetary
benefits. Social benefits can therefore be expressed in financial terms. It is highly probable that the fact that the Western region
is served by GBC will increase the attractiveness of living in a rural area, which may in turn precipitate an increase in property
values in the Western region and the financial benefit could be expressed in terms of the aggregate increase in property values
in the region as a whole.

正确答案：
5 Dexter Co
(a) Responsibilities of management and auditors
Responsibilities
ISA 570 Going Concern provides a clear framework for the assessment of the going concern status of an entity, and
differentiates between the responsibilities of management and of auditors. Management should assess going concern in order
to decide on the most appropriate basis for the preparation of the financial statements. IAS 1 Presentation of Financial
Statements (revised) requires that where there is significant doubt over an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the
uncertainties should be disclosed in a note to the financial statements. Where the directors intend to cease trading, or have
no realistic alternative but to do so, the financial statements should be prepared on a ‘break up’ basis.
Thus the main focus of the management’s assessment of going concern is to ensure that relevant disclosures are made where
necessary, and that the correct basis of preparation is used.
The auditor’s responsibility is to consider the appropriateness of the management’s use of the going concern assumption in
the preparation of the financial statements and to consider whether there are material uncertainties about the entity’s ability
to continue as a going concern that need to be disclosed in a note.
The auditor should also consider the length of the time period that management have looked at in their assessment of going
concern.
The auditor will therefore need to come to an opinion as to the going concern status of an entity but the focus of the auditor’s
evaluation of going concern is to see whether they agree with the assessment made by the management. Therefore whether
they agree with the basis of preparation of the financial statements, or the inclusion in a note to the financial statements, as
required by IAS 1, of any material uncertainty.
Evaluation techniques
In carrying out the going concern assessment, management will evaluate a wide variety of indicators, including operational
and financial. An entity employing good principles of corporate governance should be carrying out such an assessment as
part of the on-going management of the business.
Auditors will use a similar assessment technique in order to come to their own opinion as to the going concern status of an
entity. They will carry out an operational review of the business in order to confirm business understanding, and will conduct
a financial review as part of analytical procedures. Thus both management and auditors will use similar business risk
assessment techniques to discover any threats to the going concern status of the business.
Auditors should not see going concern as a ‘completion issue’, but be alert to issues affecting going concern throughout the
audit. In the same way that management should continually be managing risk (therefore minimising going concern risk),
auditors should be continually be alert to going concern problems throughout the duration of the audit.
However, one difference is that when going concern problems are discovered, the auditor is required by IAS 570 to carry out
additional procedures. Examples of such procedures would include:
– Analysing and discussing cash flow, profit and other relevant forecasts with management
– Analysing and discussing the entity’s latest available interim financial statements
– Reviewing events after the period end to identify those that either mitigate or otherwise affect the entity’s ability to
continue as a going concern, and
– Reading minutes of meetings of shareholders, those charged with governance and relevant committees for reference to
financing difficulties.
Management are not explicitly required to gather specific evidence about going concern, but as part of good governance would
be likely to investigate and react to problems discovered.

正确答案：
6 REQUIREMENTS IN GROUP AUDITS
Tutorial note: The answer which follows is indicative of the range of points which might be made. Other relevant material will be
given suitable credit.
(a) Significant issues
Tutorial note: The objective of the IAASB’s project on the audit of group financial statements (‘group audits’) was to deal
with special considerations in group audits and, in particular, the involvement of other auditors. The re-exposure of ISA 600
(Revised and Redrafted) in March 2006 (following initial publication of a proposed revised ISA in December 2003 and an
exposure draft in March 2005) reflects the significance of the issues that the IAASB has sought to address.
Sole vs divided responsibility
The IAASB has concluded that the group auditor has sole responsibility for the group audit opinion. Thus the exposure drafts
eliminate the distinction between sole and divided responsibility. Therefore no reference to another auditor (e.g. of significant
components) should be made in the group auditor’s report. The practice of referring to another auditor may, arguably, be more
transparent to users of group financial statements. However, it may also mislead users to believe that the group auditor does
not have sole responsibility.
Definition of group auditor
The group auditor is the auditor who signs the auditor’s report on the group financial statements. The project has sought to
clarify whether, for example, an auditor from another office of the group engagement partner’s firm is a member of the group
engagement team or an ‘other auditor’.
‘Related’ vs ‘unrelated’ auditors
IAASB recognises that the nature, timing and extent of procedures performed by the group auditor, including the review of
the other auditor’s audit documentation, are affected by the group auditor’s relationship with the other audit. (For example,
if the other auditor operates under the quality control policies and procedures of the group auditor.) However, IAASB
acknowledges that a consistent distinction between ‘related’ and ‘unrelated’ auditors cannot be made due to the varying
structures of audit firms and their networks. Consequently, the only distinction that is made is between the ‘group’ and ‘other’
auditors.
Acceptance/continuance as group auditor
A group auditor should only accept or continue an engagement if sufficient appropriate evidence is expected to be obtained
on which to base the group audit opinion. Acceptance and continuance as group auditors therefore requires an assessment
of the risk of misstatement in components. IAASB has therefore proposed guidance on the benchmarks that might be used
in identifying significant components.
Access to information
IAASB has concluded that a group audit engagement should be refused (or resigned from) if the group engagement partner
concludes that it will not be possible to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, the result of which would be a disclaimer.
However, if the group engagement partner is prohibited from refusing or resigning an engagement, the group audit opinion
must be disclaimed.
Aggregation of components
Sufficient appropriate audit evidence must be obtained in respect of components that are not individually significant (but
significant in aggregate). This requires that components be selected for audit procedures (e.g. on specified account balances).
Analytical procedures are required to be performed on components that are not selected. IAASB has therefore identified factors
to be considered in selecting components that are not individually significant.
Responsibilities of other auditors
Historically, other auditors, knowing the context in which their work will be used by the group auditor, have been required to
cooperate with the group auditor. However, the project did not address guidance for other auditors. Therefore, in providing
guidance on the group audit, the IAASB requires the group auditor to obtain an understanding of the requirements for other
auditors to cooperate with the group auditor and provide access to relevant documentation.