4 Coral is the owner and managing director of Reef Ltd. She is considering the manner in which she will make her first

pension contributions. In November 2007 she inherited her mother’s house in the country of Kalania.

The following information has been extracted from client files and from telephone conversations with Coral.

Coral:

– 1972 – Born in the country of Kalania. Her father, who died in 2002, was domiciled in Kalania.

– 1999 – Moved to the UK and has lived and worked here since then.

– 2001 – Subscribed for 100% of the ordinary share capital of Reef Ltd.

– Intends to sell Reef Ltd and return to live in the country of Kalania in 2012.

– No income apart from that received from Reef Ltd.

Reef Ltd:

– A UK resident company with annual profits chargeable to corporation tax of approximately ￡70,000.

– Four employees including Coral.

– Provides scuba diving lessons to members of the public.

Payments from Reef Ltd to Coral in 2007/08:

– Director’s fees of ￡460 per month.

– Dividends paid of ￡14,250 in June 2007 and ￡14,250 in September 2007.

Pension contributions:

– Coral has not so far made any pension contributions in the tax year 2007/08 but wishes to make gross pension

contributions of ￡9,000.

– The contributions are to be made by Reef Ltd or Coral or a combination of the two in such a way as to minimise

the total after tax cost.

– Any contributions made by Coral will be funded by an additional dividend from Reef Ltd.

House in the country of Kalania:

– Beachfront property with potential rental income of ￡550 per month after deduction of allowable expenditure.

– Coral will use it for holidays for two months each year.

The tax system in the country of Kalania:

– No capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

– Income tax at 8% on income arising in the country of Kalania.

– No double tax treaty with the UK.

Required:

(a) With the objective of minimising the total after tax cost, advise Coral as to whether the gross pension

contributions of ￡9,000 should be made:

– wholly by Reef Ltd; or

– by Coral to the extent that they are tax allowable with the balance made by Reef Ltd.

Your answer should include supporting calculations where necessary. (9 marks)

(c) Describe the examination procedures you should use to verify Cusiter Co’s prospective financial information.

(9 marks)

(b) You are the audit manager of Petrie Co, a private company, that retails kitchen utensils. The draft financial

statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 show revenue $42·2 million (2006 – $41·8 million), profit before

taxation of $1·8 million (2006 – $2·2 million) and total assets of $30·7 million (2006 – $23·4 million).

You are currently reviewing two matters that have been left for your attention on Petrie’s audit working paper file

for the year ended 31 March 2007:

(i) Petrie’s management board decided to revalue properties for the year ended 31 March 2007 that had

previously all been measured at depreciated cost. At the balance sheet date three properties had been

revalued by a total of $1·7 million. Another nine properties have since been revalued by $5·4 million. The

remaining three properties are expected to be revalued later in 2007. (5 marks)

Required:

Identify and comment on the implications of these two matters for your auditor’s report on the financial

statements of Petrie Co for the year ended 31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the matters above.

Explain the grounds upon which a person may be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.(10 marks)

(b) Explain how the non-payment of contributions and the change in the pension benefits should be treated in

the financial statements of Savage for the year ended 31 October 2005. (4 marks)

4 At an academic conference, a debate took place on the implementation of corporate governance practices in

developing countries. Professor James West from North America argued that one of the key needs for developing

countries was to implement rigorous systems of corporate governance to underpin investor confidence in businesses

in those countries. If they did not, he warned, there would be no lasting economic growth as potential foreign inward

investors would be discouraged from investing.

In reply, Professor Amy Leroi, herself from a developing country, reported that many developing countries are

discussing these issues at governmental level. One issue, she said, was about whether to adopt a rules-based or a

principles-based approach. She pointed to evidence highlighting a reduced number of small and medium sized initial

public offerings in New York compared to significant growth in London. She suggested that this change could be

attributed to the costs of complying with Sarbanes-Oxley in the United States and that over-regulation would be the

last thing that a developing country would need. She concluded that a principles-based approach, such as in the

United Kingdom, was preferable for developing countries.

Professor Leroi drew attention to an important section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to illustrate her point. The key

requirement of that section was to externally report on – and have attested (verified) – internal controls. This was, she

argued, far too ambitious for small and medium companies that tended to dominate the economies of developing

countries.

Professor West countered by saying that whilst Sarbanes-Oxley may have had some problems, it remained the case

that it regulated corporate governance in the ‘largest and most successful economy in the world’. He said that rules

will sometimes be hard to follow but that is no reason to abandon them in favour of what he referred to as ‘softer’

approaches.

(a) There are arguments for both rules and principles-based approaches to corporate governance.

Required:

(i) Describe the essential features of a rules-based approach to corporate governance; (3 marks)

(d) Advise on any lifetime inheritance tax (IHT) planning that could be undertaken in respect of both Stuart and

Rebecca to help reduce the potential inheritance tax (IHT) liability calculated in (c) above. (7 marks)

Relevant retail price index figures are:

May 1994 144·7

April 1998 162·6