6月accaF6F7考官文章出来了么?听说必须...

发布时间:2021-05-11


6月accaF6F7考官文章出来了么?听说必须要看文章。


最佳答案

F阶段看不看文章没太大关系,P的时候一定要看的。建议看最近一年出的文章,就是文章列表排名靠前的那几篇,有时候出了文章,当年会考那个知识点哦。


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。

(ii) Identify and explain the potential financial statement risks caused by the breach of planning regulations

discussed in the press cutting. (6 marks)

正确答案:
(ii) Several significant financial statement risks are indicated by the press cutting.
Overstatement of property, plant and equipment
Medix Co has constructed a research laboratory which is likely to be impaired at the year end. The local authority has
the power to shut down the facility, and it is clear from the press cutting that this is likely to happen before the year end.
Following IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, the premises should be written down to recoverable amount, and the
impairment loss recognised as an expense. The directors should carry out an impairment review before the year end. If
the premises cannot be used as intended then the recoverable amount (measured using the higher of value in use and
fair value less selling cost) is likely to be less than current carrying value. In this case, assuming the local authority is
successful in shutting down the research laboratory, the recoverable amount is likely to be nil, as the premises have no
value in use, as it will never be used commercially, and has no market value as it is likely to be demolished.
In addition, any tangible assets such as laboratory equipment located at the premises should be tested for impairment
as if the company cannot use the premises then the assets contained within it are likely to have a lower recoverable
amount than carrying value.
Contingency – fines or penalties imposed by local authority
The press cutting indicates that Medix Co has been sued before, and that the local authority may again take legal action
against the company. IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets states that a provision should be
recognised if the company has a probable obligation at the year end which can be measured reliably. If payment is
deemed only possible at the year end, then disclosure of the contingent liability should be made in a note to the financial
statements.
If the local authority commences legal proceedings against Medix Co before the year end of 30 June 2008, then
management should assess the probability of payment. The financial statement risk is not recognising a provision (and
associated expense within the income statement), or not disclosing a contingency.
Demolition costs
The local authority may require Medix Co to demolish the premises. If this demand is made before the year end, Medix
Co should recognise a provision for demolition costs as an unavoidable legal obligation would have been created. The
financial statement risk is that in this situation, Medix Co fails to recognise a provision and associated expense within
the income statement.
Going concern
The above issues could indicate that the company may not continue in operational existence. The potential lack of
disclosure of these issues represents a financial statement risk.

2 Misson, a public limited company, has carried out transactions denominated in foreign currency during the financial

year ended 31 October 2006 and has conducted foreign operations through a foreign entity. Its functional and

presentation currency is the dollar. A summary of the foreign currency activities is set out below:

(a) Misson has a 100% owned foreign subsidiary, Chong, which was formed on 1 November 2004 with a share

capital of 100 million euros which has been taken as the cost of the investment. The total shareholders’ equity

of the subsidiary as at 31 October 2005 and 31 October 2006 was 140 million euros and 160 million euros

respectively. Chong has not paid any dividends to Misson and has no other reserves than retained earnings in its

financial statements. The subsidiary was sold on 31 October 2006 for 195 million euros.

Misson would like to know how to treat the sale of the subsidiary in the parent and group accounts for the year

ended 31 October 2006. (8 marks)

Required:

Discuss the accounting treatment of the above transactions in accordance with the advice required by the

directors.

(Candidates should show detailed workings as well as a discussion of the accounting treatment used.)

正确答案:

(c) In October 2004, Volcan commenced the development of a site in a valley of ‘outstanding natural beauty’ on

which to build a retail ‘megastore’ and warehouse in late 2005. Local government planning permission for the

development, which was received in April 2005, requires that three 100-year-old trees within the valley be

preserved and the surrounding valley be restored in 2006. Additions to property, plant and equipment during

the year include $4·4 million for the estimated cost of site restoration. This estimate includes a provision of

$0·4 million for the relocation of the 100-year-old trees.

In March 2005 the trees were chopped down to make way for a car park. A fine of $20,000 per tree was paid

to the local government in May 2005. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Volcan for the year ended

31 March 2005.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

正确答案:
(c) Site restoration
(i) Matters
■ The provision for site restoration represents nearly 2·5% of total assets and is therefore material if it is not
warranted.
■ The estimated cost of restoring the site is a cost directly attributable to the initial measurement of the tangible fixed
asset to the extent that it is recognised as a provision under IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and
Contingent Assets’ (IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’).
■ A provision should not be recognised for site restoration unless it meets the definition of a liability, i.e:
– a present obligation;
– arising from past events;
– the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits.
■ The provision is overstated by nearly $0·34m since Volcan is not obliged to relocate the trees and de facto has
only an obligation of $60,000 as at 31 March 2005 (being the penalty for having felled them). When considered
in isolation, this overstatement is immaterial (representing only 0·2% of total assets and 3·6% of PBT).
■ It seems that even if there are local government regulations calling for site restoration there is no obligation unless
the penalties for non-compliance are prohibitive (unlike the fines for the trees).
■ It is unlikely that commencement of site development has given rise to a constructive obligation, since past actions
(disregarding the preservation of the trees) must dispel any expectation that Volcan will honour any pledge to
restore the valley.
■ Whether commencing development of the site, and destroying the trees, conflicts with any statement of socioenvironmental
responsibility in the annual report.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A copy of the planning application and permission granted setting out the penalties for non-compliance.
■ Payment of $60,000 to local government in May 2005 agreed to the bank statement.
■ The present value calculation of the future cash expenditure making up the $4·0m provision.
Tutorial note: Evidence supporting the calculation of $0·4m is irrelevant as there is no liability to be provided for.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (as
for (a)).
■ Asset inspection at the site as at 31 March 2005.
■ Any contracts entered into which might confirm or dispute management’s intentions to restore the site. For
example, whether plant hire (bulldozers, etc) covers only the period over which the warehouse will be constructed
– or whether it extends to the period in which the valley would be ‘made good’.

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。