[真题]2020年ACCA考试：公司法与商法的相关考题(3)

正确答案：
(b) Quality costs may be monitored by measuring costs of non-conformance and costs of conformance.
Costs of non-conformance occur when the product fails to reach the design quality standards. Such costs may be subdivided
into internal failure costs and external failure costs.
Internal failure costs occur when the failure is detected before the transfer of the product to the customer.
External failure costs occur when the failure to reach the required standards is not detected until after the product has been
transferred to the customer.
Costs of conformance are those incurred in reducing or eliminating the costs of non-conformance. Such costs may be
subdivided into appraisal costs and prevention costs.
Appraisal costs are those associated with the evaluation of items such as purchased material and services in order to ensure
that they conform. to the agreed specification.
Prevention costs are those associated with the implementation of a quality improvement programme. Such costs are planned
in advance and their implementation should lead to continuous improvement.
Examples of quality costs relevant to Division C may include:
Internal failure costs: cost of materials scrapped due to poor receipt and storage procedures or losses of CC output due to poor
processing routines.
External failure costs: cost of quality problems with batch of CC not detected until it has reached Division B. This may require
free replacement of the batch and compensation for loss of output by Division B.
Appraisal costs: evaluation of purchased material and services in relation to the manufacture of CC to ensure that it conforms
to the agreed specification; e.g. inspection and testing before use.
Prevention costs: the cost of implementation of staff training and the costs of equipment testing to ensure that it conforms to
the specification standards required for the production of CC.
(Alternative relevant examples would be accepted)

正确答案：

(ii) The implications of delaying the sale of the business
The implications of delaying the sale of the business until 30 April would have been as follows:
– Clint would have received an additional two months of profits amounting to ￡6,920 (￡20,760 x 1/3).
– Clint’s trading income in 2006/07 would have been reduced by ￡13,015 (￡43,723 – ￡30,708), much of which
would have been subject to income tax at 40%. His additional trading income in 2007/08 of ￡19,935 would all
have been taxed at 10% and 22%.
– Clint is entitled to the personal age allowance of ￡7,280 in both years. However, it is abated by ￡1 for every ￡2
by which his total income exceeds ￡20,100. Once Clint’s total income exceeds ￡24,590 (￡20,100 + ((￡7,280
– ￡5,035) x 2)), his personal allowance will be reduced to the standard amount of ￡5,035. Accordingly, the
increased personal allowance would not be available in 2006/07 regardless of the year in which the business was
sold. It is available in 2007/08 (although part of it is wasted) but would not have been if the sale of the business
had been delayed.
– Clint’s class 4 national insurance contributions in 2006/07 would have been reduced due to the fall in the level
of his trading income. However, much of the saving would be at 1% only. Clint is not liable to class 4 national
insurance contributions in 2007/08 as he is 65 at the start of the year.
– Changing the date on which the business was sold would have had no effect on Clint’s class 2 liability as he is
not required to make class 2 contributions once he is 65 years old.

正确答案：
4 Becker & Co
(a) Joint business arrangement
The business opportunity in respect of Murray Co could be lucrative if the market research is to be believed.
However, IFAC’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants states that a mutual business arrangement is likely to give rise
to self-interest and intimidation threats to independence and objectivity. The audit firm must be and be seen to be independent
of the audit client, which clearly cannot be the case if the audit firm and the client are seen to be working together for a
mutual financial gain.
In the scenario, two options are available. Firstly, Becker & Co could provide the audit client with finance to complete the
development and take the product to market. There is a general prohibition on audit firms providing finance to their audit
clients. This would create a clear financial self-interest threat as the audit firm would be receiving a return on investment from
their client. The Code states that if a firm makes a loan (or guarantees a loan) to a client, the self-interest threat created would
be so significant that no safeguard could reduce the threat to an acceptable level.
The provision of finance using convertible debentures raises a further ethical problem, because if the debentures are ultimately
converted to equity, the audit firm would then hold equity shares in their audit client. This is a severe financial self-interest,
which safeguards are unlikely to be able to reduce to an acceptable level.
The finance should not be advanced to Murray Co while the company remains an audit client of Becker & Co.
The second option is for a joint venture company to be established. This would be perceived as a significant mutual business
interest as Becker & Co and Murray Co would be investing together, sharing control and sharing a return on investment in
the form. of dividends. IFAC’s Code of Ethics states that unless the relationship between the two parties is clearly insignificant,
the financial interest is immaterial, and the audit firm is unable to exercise significant influence, then no safeguards could
reduce the threat to an acceptable level. In this case Becker & Co may not enter into the joint venture arrangement while
Murray Co is still an audit client.
The audit practice may consider that investing in the new electronic product is a commercial strategy that it wishes to pursue,
either through loan finance or using a joint venture arrangement. In this case the firm should resign as auditor with immediate
effect in order to eliminate any ethical problem with the business arrangement. The partners should carefully consider if the
potential return on investment will more than compensate for the lost audit fee from Murray Co.
The partners should also reflect on whether they want to diversify to such an extent – this investment is unlikely to be in an
area where any of the audit partners have much knowledge or expertise. A thorough commercial evaluation and business risk
analysis must be performed on the new product to ensure that it is a sound business decision for the firm to invest.
The audit partners should also consider how much time they would need to spend on this business development, if they
decided to resign as auditors and to go ahead with the investment. Such a new and important project could mean that they
take their focus off the key business i.e. the audit practice. They should consider if it would be better to spend their time trying
to compete effectively with the two new firms of accountants, trying to retain key clients, and to attract new accounting and
audit clients rather than diversify into something completely different.