前同事问acca是不是必须把f阶段考完才能考p...

正确答案：
(c) (i) The proposed transaction broadly falls under the ‘paper for paper’ rules. Where this is the case, chargeable gains do not
arise. Instead, the new holding stands in the shoes (and inherits the base cost) of the original holding.
The company issuing the new shares must:
(i) end up with more than 25% of the ordinary share capital or a majority of the voting power of the old company,
OR
(ii) make a general offer to shareholders in the old company with a condition which would give the acquiring company
control of the company if accepted.
The exchange must be for bona fide commercial reasons and not have as its main purpose (or one of its main purposes)
the avoidance of capital gains tax or corporation tax.
The issue of shares by Bold plc satisfies these conditions, thus Damian, as a shareholder of Linden Limited, will not be
taxed on the exchange of shares.

正确答案：
(d) Default surcharge
Although the VAT return was submitted on time (i.e. within one month of the end of the tax period), part of the quarterly VAT
liability has not yet been paid. As a result this payment will be made late and a surcharge liability notice will be issued on
the company. The surcharge period will run from the date of the notice until the anniversary of the end of the period for which
the VAT was paid late (i.e. until 31 March 2007). During this period any further default will extend the surcharge period and
any further late payments of VAT will attract a surcharge penalty of 2% on the first occasion, rising to 15% for successive late
payments.
Mis-declaration penalty
As the return understates the VAT payable, a potential mis-declaration penalty arises. The amount understated exceeds 30%
of the sum of the true input tax and output tax, known as the gross amount of tax (GAT) ((30% of (87,500 + 55,000) +
40,000) = 54,750). There has, thus, been a significant understatement of the true VAT return liability, resulting in a penalty
rate of 15% of the VAT which would have been lost had the error not been discovered. However, where an under declaration
arises out of a true error i.e. there is no intention to evade tax involved, and it is voluntarily disclosed, then a mis-declaration
penalty is not normally imposed. Although the company is still within the ‘period of grace’ allowed by HMRC for the correction
of errors in the next following VAT return, it would be advisable for Trent Limited to notify HMRC of the error immediately, in
writing, unless it has a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the error having occurred.
Default interest
Default interest is chargeable when an assessment to VAT arises for an amount that has been under declared in a previous
period, whether as a result of voluntary disclosure or as identified by HMRC. Interest is charged on a daily basis from the
date the under declaration should have been declared (i.e. 1 May 2006) to the date shown on the notice of assessment or
notice of voluntary disclosure. As given the size of the error the de minimis relief for voluntarily declared errors of less than
￡2,000 is not applicable, the only way for Trent Limited to minimise the interest charge is by means of early disclosure and
payment of the additional VAT due.

正确答案：
(c) (i) Without delegation, formal organisations could not exist. Without allocation of authority, responsibility and delegation, a formal organisation cannot be effective. They are critical aspects. Managers must delegate because of the size and complexity of the organisation (certainly an issue for Flavours Fine Foods). Delegation can help overcome the physical and mental limitations of staff, managers and supervisors and it allows management to attend to other matters since routine tasks and decision making can be passed down. However, superiors must call subordinates to account and coordinate their activities.

正确答案：
(a) The IASB wish their standards to be ‘principles-based’ and in order for this to be the case, the standards must be based on
fundamental concepts. These concepts need to constitute a framework which is sound, comprehensive and internally
consistent. Without agreement on a framework, standard setting is based upon the personal conceptual frameworks of the
individual standard setters which may change as the membership of the body changes and results in standards that are not
consistent with each other. Such a framework is designed not only to assist standard setters, but also preparers of financial
statements, auditors and users.
A common goal of the IASB is to converge their standards with national standard setters. The IASB will encounter difficulties
converging their standards if decisions are based on different frameworks. The IASB has been pursuing a number of projects
that are aimed at achieving short term convergence on certain issues with national standard setters as well as major projects
with them. Convergence will be difficult if there is no consistency in the underlying framework being used.
Frameworks differ in their authoritative status. The IASB’s Framework requires management to expressly consider the
Framework if no standard or interpretation specifically applies or deals with a similar and related issue. However, certain
frameworks have a lower standing. For example, entities are not required to consider the concepts embodied in certain
national frameworks in preparing financial statements. Thus the development of an agreed framework would eliminate
differences in the authoritative standing of conceptual frameworks and lead to greater consistency in financial statements
internationally.
The existing concepts within most frameworks are quite similar. However, these concepts need revising to reflect changes in
markets, business practices and the economic environment since the concepts were developed. The existing frameworks need
developing to reflect these changes and to fill gaps in the frameworks. For example, the IASB’s Framework does not contain
a definition of the reporting entity. An agreed international framework could deal with this problem, especially if priority was
given to the issues likely to give short-term standard setting benefits.
Many standard setting bodies attempted initially to resolve accounting and reporting problems by developing accounting
standards without an accepted theoretical frame. of reference. The result has been inconsistency in the development of
standards both nationally and internationally. The frameworks were developed when several of their current standards were
in existence. In the absence of an agreed conceptual framework the same theoretical issues are revisited on several occasions
by standard setters. The result is inconsistencies and incompatible concepts. Examples of this are substance over form. and
matching versus prudence. Some standard setters such as the IASB permit two methods of accounting for the same set of
circumstances. An example is the accounting for joint ventures where the equity method and proportionate consolidation are
allowed.
Additionally there have been differences in the way that standard setters have practically used the principles in the framework.
Some national standard setters have produced a large number of highly detailed accounting rules with less emphasis on
general principles. A robust framework might reduce the need for detailed rules although some companies operate in a
different legal and statutory context than other entities. It is important that a framework must result in standards that account
appropriately for actual business practice.
An agreed framework will not solve all accounting issues, nor will it obviate the need for judgement to be exercised in resolving
accounting issues. It can provide a framework within which those judgements can be made.
A framework provides standard setters with both a foundation for setting standards, and concepts to use as tools for resolving
accounting and reporting issues. A framework provides a basic reasoning on which to consider the merits of alternatives. It
does not provide all the answers, but narrows the range of alternatives to be considered by eliminating some that are
inconsistent with it. It, thereby, contributes to greater efficiency in the standard setting process by avoiding the necessity of
having to redebate fundamental issues and facilitates any debate about specific technical issues. A framework should also
reduce political pressures in making accounting judgements. The use of a framework reduces the influence of personal biases
in accounting decisions.
However, concepts statements are by their nature very general and theoretical in their wording, which leads to alternative
conclusions being drawn. Whilst individual standards should be consistent with the Framework, in the absence of a specific
standard, it does not follow that concepts will provide practical solutions. IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’ sets out a hierarchy of authoritative guidance that should be considered in the absence of a standard.
In this case, management can use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy, albeit by considering the
IASB framework, but can also use accounting standards issued by other bodies. Thus an international framework may nottotally provide solutions to practical accounting problems.