(b) As a newly-qualified Chartered Certified Accountant, you have been asked to write an ‘ethics column’ for a trainee

accountant magazine. In particular, you have been asked to draft guidance on the following questions addressed

to the magazine’s helpline:

(i) What gifts or hospitality are acceptable and when do they become an inducement? (5 marks)

Required:

For each of the three questions, explain the threats to objectivity that may arise and the safeguards that

should be available to manage them to an acceptable level.

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

(e) Briefly provide five reasons to the management of Bailey’s why financial rewards could be considered to improve motivation. (5 marks)

Section A – This ONE question is compulsory and MUST be attempted

Hesket Nuclear (HN) is a nuclear power station in Ayland, a large European country. The HN plant is operated by Hesket Power Company (HPC), which in turn is wholly owned by the government of Ayland. Initially opened in the late 1950s, the power station grew in subsequent decades by the addition of several other facilities on the same site. HN now has the ability to generate 5% of Ayland’s entire electricity demand and is one of the largest nuclear stations in Europe. At each stage of its development from the 1950s to the present day, development on the site was welcomed by the relevant local government authorities, by the businesses that have supported it, by the trade union that represents the majority of employees (called Forward Together or FT for short) and also by the national Ayland government. A nuclear reprocessing facility was added in the 1980s. This is a valuable source of overseas income as nuclear power producers in many other parts of the world send material by sea to HN to be reprocessed. This includes nuclear producers in several developing countries that rely on the cheaper reprocessed fuel (compared to ‘virgin’ fuel) that HN produces.

HPC is loss-making and receives a substantial subsidy each year from the government of Ayland. HPC has proven itself uneconomic but is deemed politically and environmentally necessary as far as the government is concerned. The government of Ayland has reluctantly accepted that large subsidies to HPC will be necessary for many years but considers nuclear power to be a vital component of its energy portfolio (along with other energy sources such as oil, gas, coal, renewables and hydroelectric) and also as a key part of its ‘clean’ energy strategy. Unlike energy from fossil fuels (such as coal, gas and oil), nuclear power generates a negligible amount of polluting greenhouse gas. HN also provides much needed employment in an otherwise deprived part of the country. The HN power station underpins and dominates the economy of its local area and local government authorities say that the HN plant is vital to the regional economy.

Since it opened, however, the HN power station has been controversial. Whilst being welcomed by those who benefi t from it in terms of jobs, trade, reprocessing capacity and energy, a coalition has gradually built up against it comprising those sceptical about the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power. Some neighbouring countries believe themselves to be vulnerable to radioactive contamination from the HN plant. In particular, two countries, both of whom say their concerns about HN arise because of their geographical positions, are vocal opponents. They say that their geographical proximity forced them to be concerned as they are affected by the location of the HN plant which was not of their choosing.

The government of Beeland, whose capital city is 70 km across the sea from HN (which is situated on the coast), has consistently opposed HN and has frequently asked the government of Ayland to close HN down. The Beeland government claims that not only does ‘low-level’ emission from the site already contaminate the waters separating the two countries but it also claims that any future major nuclear ‘incident’ would have serious implications for the citizens of Beeland. There is some scientifi c support for this view although opinion is divided over whether Beeland is being irrational in its general opposition to HN.

The government of Ceeland is also a vocal opponent of HN. Ceeland is located to the north of Beeland and approximately 500 km away from Ayland. Some nuclear scientists have said that with such a large stretch of water between the HN plant and Ceeland, even a much-feared incident would be unlikely to seriously impact on Ceeland. Some commentators have gone further and said that Ceeland’s concerns are unfounded and ‘borne of ignorance’. FT, the trade union for HN employees, issued a statement saying that Ceeland had no reason to fear HN and that its fears were ‘entirely groundless’.

HN’s other vocal and persistent opponent is No Nuclear Now (NNN), a well-organised and well-funded campaigning group. Describing itself on its website as ‘passionate about the environment’, it describes HN’s social and environmental footprint as ‘very negative’. NNN has often pointed to an environmentally important colony of rare seals living near the HN plant. It says that the seals are dependent on a local natural ecosystem around the plant and are unable to move, arguing that the animals are at signifi cant risk from low-level contamination and would have ‘no chance’ of survival if a more serious radioactive leak ever occurred. NNN points to such a leak that occurred in the 1970s, saying that such a leak proves that HN has a poor safety record and that a leak could easily recur.

Each time an objection to the HN power station is raised, FT, the trade union, robustly defends the HN site in the media, and argues for further investment, based on the need to protect the jobs at the site. Furthermore, the radiation leak in the 1970s led to FT uniting with the HPC board to argue against those stakeholders that wanted to use the leak as a reason to close the HN site. The combination of union and HPC management was able to counter the arguments of those asking for closure.

HN places a great deal of emphasis on its risk management and often publicises the fact that it conducts continual risk assessments and is in full compliance with all relevant regulatory frameworks. Similarly, FT recently pointed out that HN has had an ‘impeccable’ safety record since the incident in the 1970s and says on its website that it is ‘proud’ that its members are involved in ensuring that the company is continually in full compliance with all of the regulatory requirements placed upon it.

The board of HPC, led by chairman Paul Gog, is under continual pressure from the government of Ayland to minimise the amount of government subsidy. Each year, the government places challenging targets on the HPC board requiring stringent cost controls at the HN power station. In seeking to reduce maintenance costs on the expiry of a prior maintenance contract last year, the board awarded the new contract to an overseas company that brought its own workers in from abroad rather than employing local people. The previous contract company was outraged to have lost the contract and the move also triggered an angry response from the local workforce and from FT, the representative trade union.

FT said that it was deplorable that HPC had awarded the contract to an overseas company when a domestic company in Ayland could have been awarded the work. The union convenor, Kate Allujah, said that especially in the nuclear industry where safety was so important, domestic workers were ‘more reliable’ than foreign workers who were brought in purely on the basis of cost and in whose countries safety standards in similar industries might not be so stringent. HPC said that it had done nothing illegal as the foreign workers were allowed to work in Ayland under international legal treaties. Furthermore, it argued that pressure by FT to raise wages over recent years had created, with the government’s subsidy targets, the cost pressure to re-tender the maintenance contract.

On HN’s 50th anniversary last year, NNN published what it called a ‘risk assessment’ for the HN power station. It said it had calculated the probabilities (P) and impacts (I) of three prominent risks.

Risk of major radioactive leak over the next 10 years: P = 10%, I = 20

Risk of nuclear explosion over the next 50 years: P = 20%, I = 100

Risk of major terrorist attack over next 10 years: P = 10%, I = 80

Impacts were on an arbitrary scale of 1–100 where 100 was defi ned by NNN as ‘total nuclear annihilation of the area and thousands of deaths’.

The governments of Beeland and Ceeland seized upon the report, saying that it proved that HN is a genuine threat to their security and should be immediately closed and decommissioned. HN’s risk manager, Keith Wan, vigorously disagreed with this assessment saying that the probabilities and the impacts were ‘ridiculous’, massively overstated and intended to unnecessarily alarm people. HN’s public relations offi ce was also angry about it and said it would issue a rebuttal statement.

Required:

(a) Distinguish between voluntary and involuntary stakeholders, identifying both types of stakeholders in Hesket Nuclear. Assess the claims of THREE of the involuntary ‘affected’ stakeholders identifi ed. (12 marks)

(b) The trade union, Forward Together, has had a long relationship with HN and represents not only the main workforce but also the employees of the maintenance company replaced by the foreign workers.

Required:

Explain the roles of employee representatives such as trade unions in corporate governance and critically evaluate, from the perspective of HPC’s board, the contribution of Forward Together in the governance of HPC. (10 marks)

(c) Explain what an agency relationship is and examine the board of HPC’s current agency relationship and objectives. Briefl y explain how these would differ if HPC was a company with private shareholders. (10 marks)

(d) As a part of HPC’s public relations effort, it has been proposed that a response statement should be prepared for the company’s website to help address two major challenges to their reputation.

Required:

Draft this statement to include the following:

(i) Referring to the NNN report, explain why accurate risk assessment is necessary at Hesket Nuclear. (8 marks)

(ii) Explain what a social and environmental ‘footprint’ is and construct the argument that HN’s overall social and environmental footprint is positive. (6 marks)

Professional marks will additionally be awarded in part (d) for drafting a statement that is clear, has a logical fl ow, is persuasive and is appropriately structured. (4 marks)

(c) Briefly describe three advantages to Bailey’s of counselling. (3 marks)

2 Your firm was appointed as auditor to Indigo Co, an iron and steel corporation, in September 2005. You are the

manager in charge of the audit of the financial statements of Indigo, for the year ending 31 December 2005.

Indigo owns office buildings, a workshop and a substantial stockyard on land that was leased in 1995 for 25 years.

Day-to-day operations are managed by the chief accountant, purchasing manager and workshop supervisor who

report to the managing director.

All iron, steel and other metals are purchased for cash at ‘scrap’ prices determined by the purchasing manager. Scrap

metal is mostly high volume. A weighbridge at the entrance to the stockyard weighs trucks and vans before and after

the scrap metals that they carry are unloaded into the stockyard.

Two furnaces in the workshop melt down the salvageable scrap metal into blocks the size of small bricks that are then

stored in the workshop. These are sold on both credit and cash terms. The furnaces are now 10 years old and have

an estimated useful life of a further 15 years. However, the furnace linings are replaced every four years. An annual

provision is made for 25% of the estimated cost of the next relining. A by-product of the operation of the furnaces is

the production of ‘clinker’. Most of this is sold, for cash, for road surfacing but some is illegally dumped.

Indigo’s operations are subsidised by the local authority as their existence encourages recycling and means that there

is less dumping of metal items. Indigo receives a subsidy calculated at 15% of the market value of metals purchased,

as declared in a quarterly return. The return for the quarter to 31 December 2005 is due to be submitted on

21 January 2006.

Indigo maintains manual inventory records by metal and estimated quality. Indigo counted inventory at 30 November

2005 with the intention of ‘rolling-forward’ the purchasing manager’s valuation as at that date to the year-end

quantities per the manual records. However, you were not aware of this until you visited Indigo yesterday to plan

your year-end procedures.

During yesterday’s tour of Indigo’s premises you saw that:

(i) sheets of aluminium were strewn across fields adjacent to the stockyard after a storm blew them away;

(ii) much of the vast quantity of iron piled up in the stockyard is rusty;

(iii) piles of copper and brass, that can be distinguished with a simple acid test, have been mixed up.

The count sheets show that metal quantities have increased, on average, by a third since last year; the quantity of

aluminium, however, is shown to be three times more. There is no suitably qualified metallurgical expert to value

inventory in the region in which Indigo operates.

The chief accountant disappeared on 1 December, taking the cash book and cash from three days’ sales with him.

The cash book was last posted to the general ledger as at 31 October 2005. The managing director has made an

allegation of fraud against the chief accountant to the police.

The auditor’s report on the financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2004 was unmodified.

Required:

(a) Describe the principal audit procedures to be carried out on the opening balances of the financial statements

of Indigo Co for the year ending 31 December 2005. (6 marks)

5 Crusoe has contacted you following the death of his father, Noland. Crusoe has inherited the whole of his father’s

estate and is seeking advice on his father’s capital gains tax position and the payment of inheritance tax following his

death.

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

Noland – personal information:

– Divorcee whose only other relatives are his sister, Avril, and two grandchildren.

– Died suddenly on 1 October 2007 without having made a will.

– Under the laws of intestacy, the whole of his estate passes to Crusoe.

Noland – income tax and capital gains tax:

– Has been a basic rate taxpayer since the tax year 2000/01.

– Sales of quoted shares resulted in:

– Chargeable gains of ￡7,100 and allowable losses of ￡17,800 in the tax year 2007/08.

– Chargeable gains of approximately ￡14,000 each tax year from 2000/01 to 2006/07.

– None of the shares were held for long enough to qualify for taper relief.

Noland – gifts made during lifetime:

– On 1 December 1999 Noland gave his house to Crusoe.

– Crusoe has allowed Noland to continue living in the house and has charged him rent of ￡120 per month

since 1 December 1999. The market rent for the house would be ￡740 per month.

– The house was worth ￡240,000 at the time of the gift and ￡310,000 on 1 October 2007.

– On 1 November 2004 Noland transferred quoted shares worth ￡232,000 to a discretionary trust for the benefit

of his grandchildren.

Noland – probate values of assets held at death: ￡

– Portfolio of quoted shares 370,000

Shares in Kurb Ltd 38,400

Chattels and cash 22,300

Domestic liabilities including income tax payable (1,900)

– It should be assumed that these values will not change for the foreseeable future.

Kurb Ltd:

– Unquoted trading company

– Noland purchased the shares on 1 December 2005.

Crusoe:

– Long-standing personal tax client of your firm.

– Married with two young children.

– Successful investment banker with very high net worth.

– Intends to gift the portfolio of quoted shares inherited from Noland to his aunt, Avril, who has very little personal

wealth.

Required:

(a) Prepare explanatory notes together with relevant supporting calculations in order to quantify the tax relief

potentially available in respect of Noland’s capital losses realised in 2007/08. (4 marks)

(iii) State any disadvantages to the relief in (i) that Sharon should be aware of, and identify and describe

another relief that she might use. (4 marks)