2019年ACCA考试《高级财务管理（专业阶段）》章节练习(2019-03-15)

正确答案：

(a) (i) The definition of what constitutes a contract for the purpose of applying the standard is critical. The definition of contract is based on the definition of a contract in the USA and is similar to that in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. A contract exists when an agreement between two or more parties creates enforceable rights and obligations between those parties. The agreement does not need to be in writing to be a contract but the decision as to whether a contractual right or obligation is enforceable is considered within the context of the relevant legal framework of a jurisdiction. Thus, whether a contract is enforceable will vary across jurisdictions. The performance obligation could include promises which result in a valid expectation that the entity will transfer goods or services to the customer even though those promises are not legally enforceable.

The first criteria set out in IFRS 15 is that the parties should have approved the contract and are committed to perform. their respective obligations. It would be questionable whether that contract is enforceable if this were not the case. In the case of oral or implied contracts, this may be difficult but all relevant facts and circumstances should be considered in assessing the parties’ commitment. The parties need not always be committed to fulfilling all of the obligations under a contract. IFRS 15 gives the example where a customer is required to purchase a minimum quantity of goods but past experience shows that the customer does not always do this and the other party does not enforce their contract rights. However, there needs to be evidence that the parties are substantially committed to the contract.

It is essential that each party’s rights and the payment terms can be identified regarding the goods or services to be transferred. This latter requirement is the key to determining the transaction price.

The contract must have commercial substance before revenue can be recognised, as without this requirement, entities might artificially inflate their revenue and it would be questionable whether the transaction has economic consequences. Further, it should be probable that the entity will collect the consideration due under the contract. An assessment of a customer’s credit risk is an important element in deciding whether a contract has validity but customer credit risk does not affect the measurement or presentation of revenue. The consideration may be different to the contract price because of discounts and bonus offerings. The entity should assess the ability of the customer to pay and the customer’s intention to pay the consideration. If a contract with a customer does not meet these criteria, the entity can continually re-assess the contract to determine whether it subsequently meets the criteria.

Two or more contracts which are entered into around the same time with the same customer may be combined and accounted for as a single contract, if they meet the specified criteria. The standard provides detailed requirements for contract modifications. A modification may be accounted for as a separate contract or a modification of the original contract, depending upon the circumstances of the case.

(ii) Step one in the five-step model requires the identification of the contract with the customer. After a contract has been determined to fall under IFRS 15, the following steps are required before revenue can be recognised.

Step two requires the identification of the separate performance obligations in the contract. This is often referred to as ’unbundling’, and is done at the beginning of a contract. The key factor in identifying a separate performance obligation is the distinctiveness of the good or service, or a bundle of goods or services. A good or service is distinct if the customer can benefit from the good or service on its own or together with other readily available resources and is separately identifiable from other elements of the contract. IFRS 15 requires a series of distinct goods or services which are substantially the same with the same pattern of transfer, to be regarded as a single performance obligation. A good or service, which has been delivered, may not be distinct if it cannot be used without another good or service which has not yet been delivered. Similarly, goods or services which are not distinct should be combined with other goods or services until the entity identifies a bundle of goods or services which is distinct. IFRS 15 provides indicators rather than criteria to determine when a good or service is distinct within the context of the contract. This allows management to apply judgement to determine the separate performance obligations which best reflect the economic substance of a transaction.

Step three requires the entity to determine the transaction price, which is the amount of consideration which an entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for the promised goods or services. This amount excludes amounts collected on behalf of a third party, for example, government taxes. An entity must determine the amount of consideration to which it expects to be entitled in order to recognise revenue.

The transaction price might include variable or contingent consideration. Variable consideration should be estimated as either the expected value or the most likely amount. Management should use the approach which it expects will best predict the amount of consideration and should be applied consistently throughout the contract. An entity can only include variable consideration in the transaction price to the extent that it is highly probable that a subsequent change in the estimated variable consideration will not result in a significant revenue reversal. If it is not appropriate to include all of the variable consideration in the transaction price, the entity should assess whether it should include part of the variable consideration. However, this latter amount still has to pass the ’revenue reversal’ test.

Additionally, an entity should estimate the transaction price taking into account non-cash consideration, consideration payable to the customer and the time value of money if a significant financing component is present. The latter is not required if the time period between the transfer of goods or services and payment is less than one year. If an entity anticipates that it may ultimately accept an amount lower than that initially promised in the contract due to, for example, past experience of discounts given, then revenue would be estimated at the lower amount with the collectability of that lower amount being assessed. Subsequently, if revenue already recognised is not collectable, impairment losses should be taken to profit or loss.

Step four requires the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations. The allocation is based on the relative standalone selling prices of the goods or services promised and is made at inception of the contract. It is not adjusted to reflect subsequent changes in the standalone selling prices of those goods or services. The best evidence of standalone selling price is the observable price of a good or service when the entity sells that good or service separately. If that is not available, an estimate is made by using an approach which maximises the use of observable inputs. For example, expected cost plus an appropriate margin or the assessment of market prices for similar goods or services adjusted for entity-specific costs and margins or in limited circumstances a residual approach. When a contract contains more than one distinct performance obligation, an entity allocates the transaction price to each distinct performance obligation on the basis of the standalone selling price.

Where the transaction price includes a variable amount and discounts, consideration needs to be given as to whether these amounts relate to all or only some of the performance obligations in the contract. Discounts and variable consideration will typically be allocated proportionately to all of the performance obligations in the contract. However, if certain conditions are met, they can be allocated to one or more separate performance obligations.

Step five requires revenue to be recognised as each performance obligation is satisfied. An entity satisfies a performance obligation by transferring control of a promised good or service to the customer, which could occur over time or at a point in time. The definition of control includes the ability to prevent others from directing the use of and obtaining the benefits from the asset. A performance obligation is satisfied at a point in time unless it meets one of three criteria set out in IFRS 15. Revenue is recognised in line with the pattern of transfer.

If an entity does not satisfy its performance obligation over time, it satisfies it at a point in time and revenue will be recognised when control is passed at that point in time. Factors which may indicate the passing of control include the present right to payment for the asset or the customer has legal title to the asset or the entity has transferred physical possession of the asset.

(b) (i) The contract contains a significant financing component because of the length of time between when the customer pays for the asset and when Tang transfers the asset to the customer, as well as the prevailing interest rates in the market. A contract with a customer which has a significant financing component should be separated into a revenue component (for the notional cash sales price) and a loan component. Consequently, the accounting for a sale arising from a contract which has a significant financing component should be comparable to the accounting for a loan with the same features. An entity should use the discount rate which would be reflected in a separate financing transaction between the entity and its customer at contract inception. The interest rate implicit in the transaction may be different from the rate to be used to discount the cash flows, which should be the entity’s incremental borrowing rate. IFRS 15 would therefore dictate that the rate which should be used in adjusting the promised consideration is 5%, which is the entity’s incremental borrowing rate, and not 11·8%.

Tang would account for the significant financing component as follows:

Recognise a contract liability for the $240,000 payment received on 1 December 2014 at the contract inception:

Dr Cash $240,000
Cr Contract liability $240,000

During the two years from contract inception (1 December 2014) until the transfer of the printing machine, Tang adjusts the amount of consideration and accretes the contract liability by recognising interest on $240,000 at 5% for two years.

Year to 30 November 2015
Dr Interest expense $12,000
Cr Contract liability $12,000

Contract liability would stand at $252,000 at 30 November 2015.

Year to 30 November 2016
Dr Interest expense $12,600
Cr Contract liability $12,600

Recognition of contract revenue on transfer of printing machine at 30 November 2016 of $264,600 by debiting contract liability and crediting revenue with this amount.

(ii) Tang accounts for the promised bundle of goods and services as a single performance obligation satisfied over time in accordance with IFRS 15. At the inception of the contract, Tang expects the following:

Transaction price $1,500,000
Expected costs $800,000
Expected profit (46·7%) $700,000

At contract inception, Tang excludes the $100,000 bonus from the transaction price because it cannot conclude that it is highly probable that a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised will not occur. Completion of the printing machine is highly susceptible to factors outside the entity’s influence. By the end of the first year, the entity has satisfied 65% of its performance obligation on the basis of costs incurred to date. Costs incurred to date are therefore $520,000 and Tang reassesses the variable consideration and concludes that the amount is still constrained. Therefore at 30 November 2015, the following would be recognised:

Revenue $975,000
Costs $520,000
Gross profit $455,000

However, on 4 December 2015, the contract is modified. As a result, the fixed consideration and expected costs increase by $110,000 and $60,000, respectively. The total potential consideration after the modification is $1,710,000 which is $1,610,000 fixed consideration + $100,000 completion bonus. In addition, the allowable time for achieving the bonus is extended by six months with the result that Tang concludes that it is highly probable that including the bonus in the transaction price will not result in a significant reversal in the amount of cumulative revenue recognised in accordance with IFRS 15. Therefore the bonus of $100,000 can be included in the transaction price. Tang also concludes that the contract remains a single performance obligation. Thus,Tang accounts for the contract modification as if it were part of the original contract. Therefore, Tang updates its estimates of costs and revenue as follows:

Tang has satisfied 60·5% of its performance obligation ($520,000 actual costs incurred compared to $860,000 total expected costs). The entity recognises additional revenue of $59,550 [(60·5% of $1,710,000) – $975,000 revenue recognised to date] at the date of the modification as a cumulative catch-up adjustment. As the contract amendment took place after the year end, the additional revenue would not be treated as an adjusting event.

正确答案：
(ii) If the directors agree to disclose the note, it should be reviewed by the auditors to ensure that it is sufficiently detailed.
In evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure in the note, the auditor should consider whether the disclosure explicitly
draws the reader’s attention to the possibility that the entity may not be able to continue as a going concern in the
foreseeable future. The note should include a description of conditions giving rise to significant doubt, and the directors’
plans to deal with the conditions. If the note provided contains adequate information then there is no breach of financial
reporting standards, and so no disagreement with the directors.
If the disclosure is considered adequate, then the opinion should not be qualified. The auditors should consider a
modification by adding an emphasis of matter paragraph to highlight the existence of the material uncertainties, and to
draw attention to the note to the financial statements. The emphasis of matter paragraph should firstly contain a brief
description of the uncertainties, and also refer explicitly to the note to the financial statements where the situation has
been fully described. The emphasis of matter paragraph should re-iterate that the audit opinion is not qualified.
However, it could be the case that a note has been given in the financial statements, but that the details are inadequate
and do not fully explain the significant uncertainties affecting the going concern status of the company. In this situation
the auditors should express a qualified opinion, disagreeing with the preparation of the financial statements, as the
disclosure requirements of IAS 1 have not been followed.

正确答案：
Part (b)
A simple standard form. to be completed by the referee is acceptable to provide all the required details. A standard form. should
ask about the existing job title, the main duties and responsibilities of the current job, period of employment, present pay or salary
and the attendance record.

正确答案：

Tutorial note:
In order to apply any piece of legislation, judges have to determine its meaning. In other words they are required to interpret the
statute before them in order to give it meaning. The diffi culty, however, is that the words in statutes do not speak for themselves and
interpretation is an active process, and at least potentially a subjective one depending on the situation of the person who is doing
the interpreting.
Judges have considerable power in deciding the actual meaning of statutes, especially when they are able to deploy a number of
competing, not to say contradictory, mechanisms for deciding the meaning of the statute before them. There are, essentially, two
contrasting views as to how judges should go about determining the meaning of a statute – the restrictive, literal approach and the
more permissive, purposive approach.
(a) The literal approach
The literal approach is dominant in the English legal system, although it is not without critics, and devices do exist for
circumventing it when it is seen as too restrictive. This view of judicial interpretation holds that the judge should look primarily
to the words of the legislation in order to construe its meaning and, except in the very limited circumstances considered below,
should not look outside of, or behind, the legislation in an attempt to fi nd its meaning.
Within the context of the literal approach there are two distinct rules:
(i) The literal rule
Under this rule, the judge is required to consider what the legislation actually says rather than considering what it might
mean. In order to achieve this end, the judge should give words in legislation their literal meaning, that is, their plain,
ordinary, everyday meaning, even if the effect of this is to produce what might be considered an otherwise unjust or
undesirable outcome (Fisher v Bell (1961)) in which the court chose to follow the contract law literal interpretation of
the meaning of offer in the Act in question and declined to consider the usual non-legal literal interpretation of the word
(offer).

(ii) The golden rule
This rule is applied in circumstances where the application of the literal rule is likely to result in what appears to the court
to be an obviously absurd result. It should be emphasised, however, that the court is not at liberty to ignore, or replace,
legislative provisions simply on the basis that it considers them absurd; it must fi nd genuine diffi culties before it declines
to use the literal rule in favour of the golden one. As examples, there may be two apparently contradictory meanings to a
particular word used in the statute, or the provision may simply be ambiguous in its effect. In such situations, the golden
rule operates to ensure that preference is given to the meaning that does not result in the provision being an absurdity.
Thus in Adler v George (1964) the defendant was found guilty, under the Offi cial Secrets Act 1920, with obstruction
‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited area, although she had actually carried out the obstruction ‘inside’ the area.
(b) The purposive approach
The purposive approach rejects the limitation of the judges’ search for meaning to a literal construction of the words of
legislation itself. It suggests that the interpretative role of the judge should include, where necessary, the power to look beyond
the words of statute in pursuit of the reason for its enactment, and that meaning should be construed in the light of that purpose
and so as to give it effect. This purposive approach is typical of civil law systems. In these jurisdictions, legislation tends to set
out general principles and leaves the fi ne details to be fi lled in later by the judges who are expected to make decisions in the
furtherance of those general principles.
European Community (EC) legislation tends to be drafted in the continental manner. Its detailed effect, therefore, can only be
determined on the basis of a purposive approach to its interpretation. This requirement, however, runs counter to the literal
approach that is the dominant approach in the English system. The need to interpret such legislation, however, has forced
a change in that approach in relation to Community legislation and even with respect to domestic legislation designed to
implement Community legislation. Thus, in Pickstone v Freemans plc (1988), the House of Lords held that it was permissible,
and indeed necessary, for the court to read words into inadequate domestic legislation in order to give effect to Community
law in relation to provisions relating to equal pay for work of equal value. (For a similar approach, see also the House of Lords’
decision in Litster v Forth Dry Dock (1989) and the decision in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 2) (1996).) However,
it has to recognise that the purposive rule is not particularly modern and has its precursor in a long established rule of statutory
interpretation, namely the mischief rule.

The mischief rule
This rule permits the court to go behind the actual wording of a statute in order to consider the problem that the statute is
supposed to remedy.
In its traditional expression it is limited by being restricted to using previous common law rules in order to decide the operation
of contemporary legislation. Thus in Heydon’s case (1584) it was stated that in making use of the mischief rule the court
should consider what the mischief in the law was which the common law did not adequately deal with and which statute law
had intervened to remedy. Use of the mischief rule may be seen in Corkery v Carpenter (1950), in which a man was found
guilty of being drunk in charge of a carriage although he was in fact only in charge of a bicycle.