惠州的同学些，ACCA机考考点有哪些

发布时间：2021-04-21

惠州的同学些，ACCA机考考点有哪些

最佳答案

ACCA机考点并不是每个城市都有的，具体机考点如下：
机考点：
温馨提示：
*注：F1-F4考试为机考，具体考试时间及费用以机考中心公布信息为准。
说明：F5-F9目前实行机考与纸质考试并行政策，
去年3月的F5-F9机考国内考点为(10个城市)：北京、长沙、成都、广州、杭州、南昌、南京、上海、武汉、西安。考试时间和费用与纸质考试一致。

下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题，供大家学习参考。

15 A trader who fixes her prices by adding 50% to cost actually achieved a mark-up of 45%.

Which of the following factors could account for the shortfall?

1 Sales were lower than expected.

2 The opening inventories had been overstated.

3 The closing inventories of the business were higher than the opening inventories.

4 Goods taken from inventories by the proprietor were recorded by debiting drawings and crediting purchases with

the cost of the goods.

A All four factors

B 1, 2 and 4 only

C 2 only

D 3 and 4 only

正确答案：C

(b) Peter, one of Linden Limited’s non-executive directors, having lived and worked in the UK for most of his adult

life, sold his home near London on 22 March 2006 and, together with his wife (a French citizen), moved to live

in a villa which she owns in the south of France. Peter is now demanding that the tax deducted from his director’s

fees, for the board meetings held on 18 April and 16 May 2006, be refunded, on the grounds that, as he is no

longer resident in the UK, he is no longer liable to UK income tax. All of the company’s board meetings are held

at its offices in Cambridge.

Despite Peter’s assurance that none of the other companies of which he is a director has disputed his change of

tax status, Damian is uncertain whether he should make the refunds requested. However, as Peter is a friend of

the company’s founder, Linden Limited’s managing director is urging him to do so, stating that if the tax does

have to be paid, then Linden Limited could always bear the cost.

Required:

Advise Damian whether Peter is correct in his assertion regarding his tax position and in the case that there

is a UK tax liability the implications of the managing director’s suggestion. You are not required to consider

national insurance (NIC) issues. (4 marks)

正确答案：
(b) Peter will have been resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. When such individuals leave the UK for a purpose other than
to take up full time employment abroad, they normally continue to still be so regarded unless their absence spans a complete
tax year. But, where someone intends to live permanently abroad or to do so for a period of at least three tax years, they may
be treated as non-resident and non-ordinarily resident from the day after the date of their departure, if they can provide
evidence to HMRC of that intention. Selling a residence in the UK and setting up home abroad will normally constitute such
evidence. However to retain non-resident status the intention must actually be fulfilled, and visits to the UK must not exceed
182 days in any tax year or average more than 90 days per year over a period of four tax years. Given that Peter would appear
to have several company directorships in the UK, it is possible that he might fail to satisfy the 90 day average ‘substantial
visits’ rule.
Even if Peter is classed as non-resident, any remuneration earned in the UK will still be liable to UK income tax, and subject
to PAYE, unless it is for duties incidental to an overseas employment, which is unlikely to be the case for fees paid to a nonexecutive
director for attending board meetings. Thus, income tax should still be deducted from the fees under PAYE. Where
PAYE should have been deducted from a director’s emoluments and it has not been, but the tax is nevertheless accounted
for by the company to HMRC, then to the extent that the tax is not reimbursed by the director, he will be treated as receiving
a benefit equivalent to the amount of tax.

2 Marrgrett, a public limited company, is currently planning to acquire and sell interests in other entities and has asked

for advice on the impact of IFRS3 (Revised) ‘Business Combinations’ and IAS27 (Revised) ‘Consolidated and Separate

Financial Statements’. The company is particularly concerned about the impact on earnings, net assets and goodwill

at the acquisition date and any ongoing earnings impact that the new standards may have.

The company is considering purchasing additional shares in an associate, Josey, a public limited company. The

holding will increase from 30% stake to 70% stake by offering the shareholders of Josey, cash and shares in

Marrgrett. Marrgrett anticipates that it will pay $5 million in transaction costs to lawyers and bankers. Josey had

previously been the subject of a management buyout. In order that the current management shareholders may remain

in the business, Marrgrett is going to offer them share options in Josey subject to them remaining in employment for

two years after the acquisition. Additionally, Marrgrett will offer the same shareholders, shares in the holding company

which are contingent upon a certain level of profitability being achieved by Josey. Each shareholder will receive shares

of the holding company up to a value of $50,000, if Josey achieves a pre-determined rate of return on capital

employed for the next two years.

Josey has several marketing-related intangible assets that are used primarily in marketing or promotion of its products.

These include trade names, internet domain names and non-competition agreements. These are not currently

recognised in Josey’s financial statements.

Marrgrett does not wish to measure the non-controlling interest in subsidiaries on the basis of the proportionate

interest in the identifiable net assets, but wishes to use the ‘full goodwill’ method on the transaction. Marrgrett is

unsure as to whether this method is mandatory, or what the effects are of recognising ‘full goodwill’. Additionally the

company is unsure as to whether the nature of the consideration would affect the calculation of goodwill.

To finance the acquisition of Josey, Marrgrett intends to dispose of a partial interest in two subsidiaries. Marrgrett will

retain control of the first subsidiary but will sell the controlling interest in the second subsidiary which will become

an associate. Because of its plans to change the overall structure of the business, Marrgrett wishes to recognise a

re-organisation provision at the date of the business combination.

Required:

Discuss the principles and the nature of the accounting treatment of the above plans under International Financial

Reporting Standards setting out any impact that IFRS3 (Revised) ‘Business Combinations’ and IAS27 (Revised)

‘Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements’ might have on the earnings and net assets of the group.

Note: this requirement includes 2 professional marks for the quality of the discussion.

(25 marks)

正确答案：
2 IFRS3 (Revised) is a further development of the acquisition model and represents a significant change in accounting for business
combinations. The consideration is the amount paid for the business acquired and is measured at fair value. Consideration will
include cash, assets, contingent consideration, equity instruments, options and warrants. It also includes the fair value of all equity
interests that the acquirer may have held previously in the acquired business. The principles to be applied are that:
(a) a business combination occurs only in respect of the transaction that gives one entity control of another
(b) the identifiable net assets of the acquiree are re-measured to their fair value on the date of the acquisition
(c) NCI are measured on the date of acquisition under one of the two options permitted by IFRS3 (Revised).
An equity interest previously held in the acquiree which qualified as an associate under IAS28 is similarly treated as if it were
disposed of and reacquired at fair value on the acquisition date. Accordingly, it is re-measured to its acquisition date fair value, and
any resulting gain or loss compared to its carrying amount under IAS28 is recognised in profit or loss. Thus the 30% holding in
the associate which was previously held will be included in the consideration. If the carrying amount of the interest in the associate
is not held at fair value at the acquisition date, the interest should be measured to fair value and the resulting gain or loss should
be recognised in profit or loss. The business combination has effectively been achieved in stages.
The fees payable in transaction costs are not deemed to be part of the consideration paid to the seller of the shares. They are not
assets of the purchased business that are recognised on acquisition. Therefore, they should be expensed as incurred and the
services received. Transaction costs relating to the issue of debt or equity, if they are directly attributable, will not be expensed but
deducted from debt or equity on initial recognition.
It is common for part of the consideration to be contingent upon future events. Marrgrett wishes some of the existing
shareholders/employees to remain in the business and has, therefore, offered share options as an incentive to these persons. The
issue is whether these options form. part of the purchase consideration or are compensation for post-acquisition services. The
conditions attached to the award will determine the accounting treatment. In this case there are employment conditions and,
therefore, the options should be treated as compensation and valued under IFRS2 ‘Share based payment’. Thus a charge will
appear in post-acquisition earnings for employee services as the options were awarded to reward future services of employees
rather than to acquire the business.
The additional shares to a fixed value of $50,000 are contingent upon the future returns on capital employed. Marrgrett only wants
to make additional payments if the business is successful. All consideration should be fair valued at the date of acquisition,
including the above contingent consideration. The contingent consideration payable in shares where the number of shares varies
to give the recipient a fixed value ($50,000) meets the definition of a financial liability under IAS32 ‘Financial Instruments:
Presentation’. As a result the liability will have to be fair valued and any subsequent remeasurement will be recognised in the
income statement. There is no requirement under IFRS3 (Revised) for the payments to be probable.
Intangible assets should be recognised on acquisition under IFRS3 (Revised). These include trade names, domain names, and
non-competition agreements. Thus these assets will be recognised and goodwill effectively reduced. The additional clarity in
IFRS3 (Revised) could mean that more intangible assets will be recognised on acquisition. As a result of this, the post-combination
income statement may have more charges for amortisation of the intangibles than was previously the case.
The revised standard gives entities the option, on a transaction by transaction basis, to measure non-controlling interests (NCI) at
the fair value of the proportion of identifiable net assets or at full fair value. The first option results in measurement of goodwill on
consolidation which would normally be little different from the previous standard. The second approach records goodwill on the
NCI as well as on the acquired controlling interest. Goodwill is the residual but may differ from that under the previous standard
because of the nature of the valuation of the consideration as previously held interests are fair valued and also because goodwill
can be measured in the above two ways (full goodwill and partial goodwill). The standard gives entities a choice for each separate
business combination of recognising full or partial goodwill. Recognising full goodwill will increase reported net assets and may
result in any future impairment of goodwill being of greater value. Measuring NCI at fair value may have some difficulties but
goodwill impairment testing may be easier under full goodwill as there is no need to gross-up goodwill for partly-owned
subsidiaries. The type of consideration does not affect goodwill regardless of how the payment is structured. Consideration is
recognised in total at its fair value at the date of acquisition. The form. of the consideration will not affect goodwill but the structure
of the payments can affect post-acquisition profits. Contingent payments which are deemed to be debt instruments will be
remeasured at each reporting date with the change going to the income statement.
Marrgrett has a maximum period of 12 months to finalise the acquisition accounting but will not be able to recognise the
re-organisation provision at the date of the business combination. The ability of the acquirer to recognise a liability for reducing or
changing the activities of the acquiree is restricted. A restructuring provision can only be recognised in a business combination
when the acquiree has at the acquisition date, an existing liability which complies with IAS37 ‘Provisions, contingent liabilities and
contingent assets’. These conditions are unlikely to exist at the acquisition date. A restructuring plan that is conditional on the
completion of a business combination is not recognised in accounting for the acquisition but the expense will be met against
post-acquisition earnings.
IAS27 (Revised) uses the economic entity model whereas previous practice used the parent company approach. The economic
entity model treats all providers of equity capital as shareholders of the entity even where they are not shareholders in the parent.
A partial disposal of an interest in a subsidiary in which control is still retained is seen as a treasury transaction and accounted for
in equity. It does not result in a gain or loss but an increase or decrease in equity. However, where a partial disposal in a subsidiary
results in a loss of control but the retention of an interest in the form. of an associate, then a gain or loss is recognised in the whole
interest. A gain or loss is recognised on the portion that has been sold, and a holding gain or loss is recognised on the interest
retained being the difference between the book value and fair value of the interest. Both gains/losses are recognised in the income
statement.

4 Ryder, a public limited company, is reviewing certain events which have occurred since its year end of 31 October

2005. The financial statements were authorised on 12 December 2005. The following events are relevant to the

financial statements for the year ended 31 October 2005:

(i) Ryder has a good record of ordinary dividend payments and has adopted a recent strategy of increasing its

dividend per share annually. For the last three years the dividend per share has increased by 5% per annum.

On 20 November 2005, the board of directors proposed a dividend of 10c per share for the year ended

31 October 2005. The shareholders are expected to approve it at a meeting on 10 January 2006, and a

dividend amount of $20 million will be paid on 20 February 2006 having been provided for in the financial

statements at 31 October 2005. The directors feel that a provision should be made because a ‘valid expectation’

has been created through the company’s dividend record. (3 marks)

(ii) Ryder disposed of a wholly owned subsidiary, Krup, a public limited company, on 10 December 2005 and made

a loss of $9 million on the transaction in the group financial statements. As at 31 October 2005, Ryder had no

intention of selling the subsidiary which was material to the group. The directors of Ryder have stated that there

were no significant events which have occurred since 31 October 2005 which could have resulted in a reduction

in the value of Krup. The carrying value of the net assets and purchased goodwill of Krup at 31 October 2005

were $20 million and $12 million respectively. Krup had made a loss of $2 million in the period 1 November

2005 to 10 December 2005. (5 marks)

(iii) Ryder acquired a wholly owned subsidiary, Metalic, a public limited company, on 21 January 2004. The

consideration payable in respect of the acquisition of Metalic was 2 million ordinary shares of $1 of Ryder plus

a further 300,000 ordinary shares if the profit of Metalic exceeded $6 million for the year ended 31 October

2005. The profit for the year of Metalic was $7 million and the ordinary shares were issued on 12 November

2005. The annual profits of Metalic had averaged $7 million over the last few years and, therefore, Ryder had

included an estimate of the contingent consideration in the cost of the acquisition at 21 January 2004. The fair

value used for the ordinary shares of Ryder at this date including the contingent consideration was $10 per share.

The fair value of the ordinary shares on 12 November 2005 was $11 per share. Ryder also made a one for four

bonus issue on 13 November 2005 which was applicable to the contingent shares issued. The directors are

unsure of the impact of the above on earnings per share and the accounting for the acquisition. (7 marks)

(iv) The company acquired a property on 1 November 2004 which it intended to sell. The property was obtained

as a result of a default on a loan agreement by a third party and was valued at $20 million on that date for

accounting purposes which exactly offset the defaulted loan. The property is in a state of disrepair and Ryder

intends to complete the repairs before it sells the property. The repairs were completed on 30 November 2005.

The property was sold after costs for $27 million on 9 December 2005. The property was classified as ‘held for

sale’ at the year end under IFRS5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’ but shown at

the net sale proceeds of $27 million. Property is depreciated at 5% per annum on the straight-line basis and no

depreciation has been charged in the year. (5 marks)

(v) The company granted share appreciation rights (SARs) to its employees on 1 November 2003 based on ten

million shares. The SARs provide employees at the date the rights are exercised with the right to receive cash

equal to the appreciation in the company’s share price since the grant date. The rights vested on 31 October

2005 and payment was made on schedule on 1 December 2005. The fair value of the SARs per share at

31 October 2004 was $6, at 31 October 2005 was $8 and at 1 December 2005 was $9. The company has

recognised a liability for the SARs as at 31 October 2004 based upon IFRS2 ‘Share-based Payment’ but the

liability was stated at the same amount at 31 October 2005. (5 marks)

Required:

Discuss the accounting treatment of the above events in the financial statements of the Ryder Group for the year

ended 31 October 2005, taking into account the implications of events occurring after the balance sheet date.

(The mark allocations are set out after each paragraph above.)

(25 marks)

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.

声明：本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传，本网站不拥有所有权，未作人工编辑处理，也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容，欢迎发送邮件至：contact@51tk.com 进行举报，并提供相关证据，工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你，一经查实，本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

站内搜索
热门标签