acca考试的好处有哪些呢？

正确答案：

(b) Benchmarking at Marlow Fashion will not be an easy exercise. Marlow Fashion has developed a distinctive way of reaching
its markets that means direct comparisons will be hard to make. Certainly, it can carry out historical benchmarking in
comparing how its own processes and activities have improved, or otherwise, over a relevant period of time. Unfortunately,
this is likely to simply confirm worsening performance. It can compare its own key operations against the ‘best in class’;
regardless of which industry the excellent performer comes from. It could and should have been carrying out competitive
benchmarking on the retail side of the business where information should be more easily available. There may be an
opportunity to benchmark itself against firms that have gone through a similar crisis and achieved a successful turnaround.

In terms of the advantages and disadvantages, the willingness of managers responsible for a key area of performance to
compare themselves against relevant external performance measures should make them take responsibility for any changes
necessary. In Marlow Fashion, the acceptance that things have to be done differently will be the first stage in the turnaround.
Getting managers face-to-face with the problems, accepting responsibility for change and recognising that the necessary
changes are ‘doable’ is an important stage in creating a willingness to change. The disadvantages are that every organisation
and situation is different and there is no one best way. Marlow Fashion thought it had discovered the best way and this created
an unwillingness to change. There is also the danger that you are solving today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions. A good
competitor will be trying to maintain its competitive advantage through constantly improving its processes. It also has a vested
interest in trying to prevent its improvements from being revealed to its competitors. Also, many of the ‘softer’ processes –
typically involving people – are difficult if not impossible to replicate in another organisation. These advantages are to do with
culture and leadership and not easily transferable to another organisation and the context in which it is operating.

正确答案：
(ii) The income tax implications of the proposed financing arrangements
Mr Fencer has borrowed money from a UK bank in order to make a loan to Rapier Ltd, a close company. The interest
paid by Mr Fencer to the bank will be an allowable charge on income as long as he continues to hold more than 5% of
Rapier Ltd. Charges on income are deductible in arriving at an individual’s statutory total income.
Mr Fencer will receive interest from Rapier Ltd net of 20% income tax. The gross amount of interest will be subject to
income tax at either 10%, 20% or 40% depending on whether the income falls into Mr Fencer’s starting rate, basic rate
or higher rate tax band. Mr Fencer will obtain a tax credit for the 20% income tax suffered at source.

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(b) Sale of industrial equipment
(i) Matters
■ The industrial equipment was in use for nine years (from April 1996) and would have had a carrying value of
$660,000 at 31 March 2005 (11/20 × $1·2m – assuming nil residual value and a full year’s depreciation charge
in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal). Disposal proceeds were therefore only $360,000.
■ The $0·3m loss represents 15% of PBT (for the year to 31 March 2006) and is therefore material. The equipment
was material to the balance sheet at 31 March 2005 representing 2·6% of total assets ($0·66/$25·7 × 100).
■ Separate disclosure, of a material loss on disposal, on the face of the income statement is in accordance with
IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. However, in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’,
it should not be captioned in any way that might suggest that it is not part of normal operating activities (i.e. not
‘extraordinary’, ‘exceptional’, etc).
Tutorial note: However, note that if there is a prior period error to be accounted for (see later), there would be
no impact on the current period income statement requiring consideration of any disclosure.
■ The reason for the sale. For example, whether the equipment was:
– surplus to operating requirements (i.e. not being replaced); or
– being replaced with newer equipment (thereby contributing to the $8·1m increase (33·8 – 25·7) in total
assets).
■ The reason for the loss on sale. For example, whether:
– the sale was at an under-value (e.g. to a related party);
– the equipment had a bad maintenance history (or was otherwise impaired);
– the useful life of the equipment is less than 20 years;
– there is any deferred consideration not yet recorded;
– any non-cash disposal proceeds have been overlooked (e.g. if another asset was acquired in a part-exchange).
■ If the useful life was less than 20 years, tangible non-current assets may be materially overstated in respect of other
items of equipment that are still in use and being depreciated on the same basis.
■ If the sale was to a related party then additional disclosure should be required in a note to the financial statements
for the year to 31 March 2006 (IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures’).
Tutorial note: Since there are no specific pointers to a related party transaction (RPT), this point is not expanded
on.
■ Whether the sale was identified in the prior year audit’s post balance sheet event review. If so:
– the disclosure made in the prior year’s financial statements (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’);
– whether an impairment loss was recognised at 31 March 2005.
■ If not, and the equipment was impaired at 31 March 2005, a prior period error should be accounted for (IAS 8
‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’). An impairment loss of $0·3m would have
been material to prior year profit (12·5%).
Tutorial note: Unless this was a RPT or the impairment arose after 31 March 2005 a prior period adjustment
should be made.
■ Failure to account for a prior period error (if any) would result in modification of the audit opinion ‘except for’ noncompliance
with IAS 8 (in the current year) and IAS 36 (in the prior period).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying amount ($0·66m as above) agreed to the non-current asset register balances at 31 March 2005 and
recalculation of the loss on disposal.
■ Cost and accumulated depreciation removed from the asset register in the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Receipt of proceeds per cash book agreed to bank statement.
■ Sales invoice transferring title to Deakin.
■ A review of maintenance expenses and records (e.g. to confirm reason for loss on sale).
■ Post balance sheet event review on prior year audit working papers file.
■ Management representation confirming that Deakin is not a related party (provided that there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise).