3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Albreda Co, a limited liability company, and its subsidiaries. The

group mainly operates a chain of national restaurants and provides vending and other catering services to corporate

clients. All restaurants offer ‘eat-in’, ‘take-away’ and ‘home delivery’ services. The draft consolidated financial

statements for the year ended 30 September 2005 show revenue of $42·2 million (2004 – $41·8 million), profit

before taxation of $1·8 million (2004 – $2·2 million) and total assets of $30·7 million (2004 – $23·4 million).

The following issues arising during the final audit have been noted on a schedule of points for your attention:

(a) In September 2005 the management board announced plans to cease offering ‘home delivery’ services from the

end of the month. These sales amounted to $0·6 million for the year to 30 September 2005 (2004 – $0·8

million). A provision of $0·2 million has been made as at 30 September 2005 for the compensation of redundant

employees (mainly drivers). Delivery vehicles have been classified as non-current assets held for sale as at 30

September 2005 and measured at fair value less costs to sell, $0·8 million (carrying amount,

$0·5 million). (8 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 Albreda Co for the year ended

30 September 2005.

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

5 International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) are primarily designed for use by publicly listed companies and

in many countries the majority of companies using IFRSs are listed companies. In other countries IFRSs are used as

national Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) for all companies including unlisted entities. It has been

argued that the same IFRSs should be used by all entities or alternatively a different body of standards should apply

to small and medium entities (SMEs).

Required:

(a) Discuss whether there is a need to develop a set of IFRSs specifically for SMEs. (7 marks)

The following information is available for a manufacturing company which produces multiple products:

(i) The product mix ratio

(ii) Contribution to sales ratio for each product

(iii) General fixed costs

(iv) Method of apportioning general fixed costs

Which of the above are required in order to calculate the break-even sales revenue for the company?

A.All of the above

B.(i), (ii) and (iii) only

C.(i), (iii) and (iv) only

D.(ii) and (iii) only

Additionally the directors wish to know how the provision for deferred taxation would be calculated in the following

situations under IAS12 ‘Income Taxes’:

(i) On 1 November 2003, the company had granted ten million share options worth $40 million subject to a two

year vesting period. Local tax law allows a tax deduction at the exercise date of the intrinsic value of the options.

The intrinsic value of the ten million share options at 31 October 2004 was $16 million and at 31 October 2005

was $46 million. The increase in the share price in the year to 31 October 2005 could not be foreseen at

31 October 2004. The options were exercised at 31 October 2005. The directors are unsure how to account

for deferred taxation on this transaction for the years ended 31 October 2004 and 31 October 2005.

(ii) Panel is leasing plant under a finance lease over a five year period. The asset was recorded at the present value

of the minimum lease payments of $12 million at the inception of the lease which was 1 November 2004. The

asset is depreciated on a straight line basis over the five years and has no residual value. The annual lease

payments are $3 million payable in arrears on 31 October and the effective interest rate is 8% per annum. The

directors have not leased an asset under a finance lease before and are unsure as to its treatment for deferred

taxation. The company can claim a tax deduction for the annual rental payment as the finance lease does not

qualify for tax relief.

(iii) A wholly owned overseas subsidiary, Pins, a limited liability company, sold goods costing $7 million to Panel on

1 September 2005, and these goods had not been sold by Panel before the year end. Panel had paid $9 million

for these goods. The directors do not understand how this transaction should be dealt with in the financial

statements of the subsidiary and the group for taxation purposes. Pins pays tax locally at 30%.

(iv) Nails, a limited liability company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Panel, and is a cash generating unit in its own

right. The value of the property, plant and equipment of Nails at 31 October 2005 was $6 million and purchased

goodwill was $1 million before any impairment loss. The company had no other assets or liabilities. An

impairment loss of $1·8 million had occurred at 31 October 2005. The tax base of the property, plant and

equipment of Nails was $4 million as at 31 October 2005. The directors wish to know how the impairment loss

will affect the deferred tax provision for the year. Impairment losses are not an allowable expense for taxation

purposes.

Assume a tax rate of 30%.

Required:

(b) Discuss, with suitable computations, how the situations (i) to (iv) above will impact on the accounting for

deferred tax under IAS12 ‘Income Taxes’ in the group financial statements of Panel. (16 marks)

(The situations in (i) to (iv) above carry equal marks)

16 Which of the following statements about accounting concepts and conventions are correct?

(1) The entity concept requires that a business is treated as being separate from its owners.

(2) The use of historical cost accounting tends to understate assets and profit when prices are rising.

(3) The prudence concept means that the lowest possible values should be applied to income and assets and the

highest possible values to expenses and liabilities.

(4) The money measurement concept means that only assets capable of being reliably measured in monetary terms

can be included in the balance sheet of a business.

A 1 and 2

B 2 and 3

C 3 and 4

D 1 and 4

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)

1 The Great Western Cake Company (GWCC) is a well-established manufacturer of specialist flour confectionery

products, including cakes. GWCC sells its products to national supermarket chains. The company’s success during

recent years is largely attributable to its ability to develop innovative products which appeal to the food selectors within

national supermarket chains.

The marketing department of Superstores plc, a national supermarket chain has asked GWCC to manufacture a cake

known as the ‘Mighty Ben’. Mighty Ben is a character who has recently appeared in a film which was broadcast

around the world. The cake is expected to have a minimum market life of one year although the marketing department

consider that this might extend to eighteen months.

The management accountant of GWCC has collated the following estimated information in respect of the Mighty Ben

cake:

(1) Superstores plc has decided on a launch price of ￡20·25 for the Mighty Ben cake and it is expected that this

price will be maintained for the duration of the product’s life. Superstores plc will apply a 35% mark-up on the

purchase price of each cake from GWCC.

(2) Sales of the Mighty Ben cake are expected to be 100,000 units per month during the first twelve months.

Thereafter sales of the Mighty Ben cake are expected to decrease by 10,000 units in each subsequent month.

(3) Due to the relatively short shelf-life of the Mighty Ben cake, management has decided to manufacture the cakes

on a ‘just-in-time’ basis for delivery in accordance with agreed schedules. The cakes will be manufactured in

batches of 1,000. Direct materials input into the baking process will cost ￡7,000 per batch for each of the first

three months’ production. The material cost of the next three months’ production is expected to be 95% of the

cost of the first three months’ production. All batches manufactured thereafter will cost 90% of the cost of the

second three months’ production.

(4) Packaging costs will amount to ￡0·75 per cake. The original costs of the artwork and design of the packaging

will amount to ￡24,000. Superstores plc will reimburse GWCC ￡8,000 in the event that the product is

withdrawn from sale after twelve months.

(5) The design of the Mighty Ben cake is such that it is required to be hand-finished. A 75% learning curve will

apply to the total labour time requirement until the end of month five. Thereafter a steady state will apply with

labour time required per batch stabilising at that of the final batch in month five. The labour requirement for the

first batch of Mighty Ben cakes to be manufactured is expected to be 6,000 hours at ￡10 per hour.

(6) A royalty of 5% of sales revenue (subject to a maximum royalty of ￡1·1 million) will be payable by GWCC to the

owners of the Mighty Ben copyright.

(7) Variable overheads are estimated at ￡3·50 per direct labour hour.

(8) The manufacture of the Mighty Ben cake will increase fixed overheads by ￡75,000 per month.

(9) In order to provide a production facility dedicated to the Mighty Ben cake, an investment of ￡1,900,000 will be

required and this will be fully depreciated over twelve months.

(10) The directors of GWCC require an average annual return of 35% on their investment over 12 months and

18 months.

(11) Ignore taxation and the present value of cash flows.

Note: Learning curve formula:

y = axb

where y = average cost per batch

a = the cost of the initial batch

x = the total number of batches

b = learning index (= –0·415 for 75% learning rate)

Required:

(a) Prepare detailed calculations to show whether the manufacture of Mighty Ben cakes will provide the required

rate of return for GWCC over periods of twelve months and eighteen months. (20 marks)