题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
[单选题]
By the end of April Peter_____ here for three years.
A.will have stayed
B.will stay
C.stays
D.has stayed
查看答案
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A.will have stayed
B.will stay
C.stays
D.has stayed
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“By the end of April Peter_____…”相关的问题
In the same month, Appliance Co intended to rent a space of 100 m2 from Department Store to exhibit its other appliance products. For this purpose the two parties entered into a rental agreement and agreed upon the following terms and conditions: the term of rental would be one year as from January to December 2011; the total rental would be RMB 400,000 yuan and be paid RMB 100,000 yuan quarterly within the first 10 days of January, April, July and October.
At the end of March 2011 Appliance Co sent Department Store a written notice, stating that it would set off its rental of RMB 200,000 yuan for the second and third instalments with the remaining price of 200,000 yuan for the refrigerators.
Required:
Answer the following questions in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, and give your reasons for your answer:
(a) state the nature and different forms of set-off as presented by Appliance Co to Department Store; (4 marks)
(b) state the conditions to be met by Appliance Co when it was claiming the set-off of credit and debt with Department Store. (6 marks)
(a) (i) Identify and explain FOUR financial statement assertions relevant to account balances at the year end; and
(ii) For each identified assertion, describe a substantive procedure relevant to the audit of year-end inventory. (8 marks)
(b) Pineapple Beach Hotel Co (Pineapple) operates a hotel providing accommodation, leisure facilities and restaurants. Its year end was 30 April 2012. You are the audit senior of Berry & Co and are currently preparing the audit programmes for the year end audit of Pineapple. You are reviewing the notes of last week’s meeting between the audit manager and finance director where two material issues were discussed.
Depreciation
Pineapple incurred significant capital expenditure during the year on updating the leisure facilities for the hotel. The finance director has proposed that the new leisure equipment should be depreciated over 10 years using the straight-line method.
Food poisoning
Pineapple’s directors received correspondence in March from a group of customers who attended a wedding at the hotel. They have alleged that they suffered severe food poisoning from food eaten at the hotel and are claiming substantial damages. Pineapple’s lawyers have received the claim and believe that the lawsuit against the company is unlikely to be successful.
Required:
Describe substantive procedures to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence in relation to the above two issues.
Note: The total marks will be split equally between each issue. (8 marks)
(c) List and explain the purpose of FOUR items that should be included on every working paper prepared by the audit team. (4 marks)
(a) The objective of IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period is to prescribe the treatment of events that occur after an entity’s reporting period has ended.
Required:
Define the period to which IAS 10 relates and distinguish between adjusting and non-adjusting events.
(5 marks)
(b) Waxwork’s current year end is 31 March 2009. Its financial statements were authorised for issue by its directors on 6 May 2009 and the AGM (annual general meeting) will be held on 3 June 2009. The following matters have been brought to your attention:
(i) On 12 April 2009 a fire completely destroyed the company’s largest warehouse and the inventory it
contained. The carrying amounts of the warehouse and the inventory were $10 million and $6 million
respectively. It appears that the company has not updated the value of its insurance cover and only expects
to be able to recover a maximum of $9 million from its insurers. Waxwork’s trading operations have been
severely disrupted since the fire and it expects large trading losses for some time to come. (4 marks)
(ii) A single class of inventory held at another warehouse was valued at its cost of $460,000 at 31 March
2009. In April 2009 70% of this inventory was sold for $280,000 on which Waxworks’ sales staff earned
a commission of 15% of the selling price. (3 marks)
(iii) On 18 May 2009 the government announced tax changes which have the effect of increasing Waxwork’s
deferred tax liability by $650,000 as at 31 March 2009. (3 marks)
Required:
Explain the required treatment of the items (i) to (iii) by Waxwork in its financial statements for the year
ended 31 March 2009.
Note: assume all items are material and are independent of each other. (10 marks as indicated)
Palm Industries Co (Palm)
Palm’s year end was 31 March 2015 and the draft financial statements show revenue of $28·2 million, receivables of $5·6 million and profit before tax of $4·8 million. The fieldwork stage for this audit has been completed.
A customer of Palm owed an amount of $350,000 at the year end. Testing of receivables in April highlighted that no amounts had been paid to Palm from this customer as they were disputing the quality of certain goods received from Palm. The finance director is confident the issue will be resolved and no allowance for receivables was made with regards to this balance.
Ash Trading Co (Ash)
Ash is a new client of Chestnut & Co, its year end was 31 January 2015 and the firm was only appointed auditors in February 2015, as the previous auditors were suddenly unable to undertake the audit. The fieldwork stage for this audit is currently ongoing.
The inventory count at Ash’s warehouse was undertaken on 31 January 2015 and was overseen by the company’s internal audit department. Neither Chestnut & Co nor the previous auditors attended the count. Detailed inventory records were maintained but it was not possible to undertake another full inventory count subsequent to the year end.
The draft financial statements show a profit before tax of $2·4 million, revenue of $10·1 million and inventory of $510,000.
Required:
For each of the two issues:
(i) Discuss the issue, including an assessment of whether it is material;
(ii) Recommend ONE procedure the audit team should undertake to try to resolve the issue; and
(iii) Describe the impact on the audit report if the issue remains UNRESOLVED.
Notes:
1 The total marks will be split equally between each of the two issues.
2 Audit report extracts are NOT required.
Required:
(a) (i) Describe the current presentation requirements relating to the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. (4 marks)
(ii) Discuss, with examples, the nature of a reclassification adjustment and the arguments for and against allowing reclassification of items to profit or loss. Note: A brief reference should be made in your answer to the IASB’s Discussion Paper on the Conceptual Framework. (5 marks)
(iii) Discuss the principles and key components of the IIRC’s Framework, and any concerns which could question the Framework’s suitability for assessing the prospects of an entity. (8 marks)
(b) Cloud, a public limited company, regularly purchases steel from a foreign supplier and designates a future purchase of steel as a hedged item in a cash flow hedge. The steel was purchased on 1 May 2014 and at that date, a cumulative gain on the hedging instrument of $3 million had been credited to other comprehensive income. At the year end of 30 April 2015, the carrying amount of the steel was $8 million and its net realisable value was $6 million. The steel was finally sold on 3 June 2015 for $6·2 million.
On a separate issue, Cloud purchased an item of property, plant and equipment for $10 million on 1 May 2013. The asset is depreciated over five years on the straight line basis with no residual value. At 30 April 2014, the asset was revalued to $12 million. At 30 April 2015, the asset’s value has fallen to $4 million. The entity makes a transfer from revaluation surplus to retained earnings for excess depreciation, as the asset is used.
Required:
Show how the above transactions would be dealt with in the financial statements of Cloud from the date of the purchase of the assets.
Note: Candidates should ignore any deferred taxation effects. (6 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 4 for clarity and quality of presentation. (2 marks)
(i) Revaluation of property, plant and equipment (PPE)
At the beginning of the year, management undertook an extensive review of Elounda Co’s non-current asset valuations and as a result decided to update the carrying value of all PPE. The finance director, Peter Dullman, contacted his brother, Martin, who is a valuer and requested that Martin’s firm undertake the valuation, which took place in August 20X5. (5 marks)
(ii) Inventory valuation
Your firm attended the year-end inventory count for Elounda Co and ascertained that the process for recording work in progress (WIP) and finished goods was acceptable. Both WIP and finished goods are material to the financial statements and the quantity and stage of completion of all ongoing production was recorded accurately during the count.
During the inventory count, the count supervisor noted that a consignment of finished goods, compound E243, with a value of $720,000, was defective in that the chemical mix was incorrect. The finance director believes that compound E243 can still be sold at a discounted sum of $400,000. (6 marks)
(iii) Bank loan
Elounda Co secured a bank loan of $2·6 million on 1 October 20X4. Repayments of $200,000 are due quarterly, with a lump sum of $800,000 due for repayment in January 20X7. The company met all loan payments in 20X5 on time, but was late in paying the April and July 20X6 repayments. (4 marks)
Required:
(a) Describe substantive procedures you should perform. to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence in relation to the above three matters.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three matters above.
(b) Describe the procedures which the auditor of Elounda Co should perform. in assessing whether or not the company is a going concern. (5 marks)
Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted
Lockfine, a public limited company, operates in the fishing industry and has recently made the transition to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Lockfine’s reporting date is 30 April 2011.
(a) In the IFRS opening statement of financial position at 1 May 2009, Lockfine elected to measure its fishing fleet at fair value and use that fair value as deemed cost in accordance with IFRS 1 First Time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. The fair value was an estimate based on valuations provided by two independent selling agents, both of whom provided a range of values within which the valuation might be considered acceptable. Lockfine calculated fair value at the average of the highest amounts in the two ranges provided. One of the agents’ valuations was not supported by any description of the method adopted or the assumptions underlying the calculation. Valuations were principally based on discussions with various potential buyers. Lockfine wished to know the principles behind the use of deemed cost and whether agents’ estimates were a reliable form. of evidence on which to base the fair value calculation of tangible assets to be then adopted as deemed cost. (6 marks)
(b) Lockfine was unsure as to whether it could elect to apply IFRS 3 Business Combinations retrospectively to past business combinations on a selective basis, because there was no purchase price allocation available for certain business combinations in its opening IFRS statement of financial position.
As a result of a major business combination, fishing rights of that combination were included as part of goodwill. The rights could not be recognised as a separately identifiable intangible asset at acquisition under the local GAAP because a reliable value was unobtainable for the rights. The fishing rights operated for a specified period of time.
On transition from local GAAP to IFRS, the fishing rights were included in goodwill and not separately identified because they did not meet the qualifying criteria set out in IFRS 1, even though it was known that the fishing rights had a finite life and would be fully impaired or amortised over the period specified by the rights. Lockfine wished to amortise the fishing rights over their useful life and calculate any impairment of goodwill as two separate calculations. (6 marks)
(c) Lockfine has internally developed intangible assets comprising the capitalised expenses of the acquisition and production of electronic map data which indicates the main fishing grounds in the world. The intangible assets generate revenue for the company in their use by the fishing fleet and are a material asset in the statement of financial position. Lockfine had constructed a database of the electronic maps. The costs incurred in bringing the information about a certain region of the world to a higher standard of performance are capitalised. The costs related to maintaining the information about a certain region at that same standard of performance are expensed. Lockfine’s accounting policy states that intangible assets are valued at historical cost. The company considers the database to have an indefinite useful life which is reconsidered annually when it is tested for impairment. The reasons supporting the assessment of an indefinite useful life were not disclosed in the financial statements and neither did the company disclose how it satisfied the criteria for recognising an intangible asset arising from development.
(d) The Lockfine board has agreed two restructuring projects during the year to 30 April 2011:
Plan A involves selling 50% of its off-shore fleet in one year’s time. Additionally, the plan is to make 40% of its seamen redundant. Lockfine will carry out further analysis before deciding which of its fleets and related employees will be affected. In previous announcements to the public, Lockfine has suggested that it may restructure the off-shore fleet in the future.
Plan B involves the reorganisation of the headquarters in 18 months time, and includes the redundancy of 20% of the headquarters’ workforce. The company has made announcements before the year end but there was a three month consultation period which ended just after the year end, whereby Lockfine was negotiating with employee representatives. Thus individual employees had not been notified by the year end. Lockfine proposes recognising a provision in respect of Plan A but not Plan B. (5 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 2 for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
Required:
Discuss the principles and practices to be used by Lockfine in accounting for the above valuation and recognition issues.
(a) In November 2010, Alexandra defaulted on an interest payment on an issued bond loan of $100 million repayable in 2015. The loan agreement stipulates that such default leads to an obligation to repay the whole of the loan immediately, including accrued interest and expenses. The bondholders, however, issued a waiver postponing the interest payment until 31 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, Alexandra felt that a further waiver was required, so requested a meeting of the bondholders and agreed a further waiver of the interest payment to 5 July 2011, when Alexandra was confident it could make the payments. Alexandra classified the loan as long-term debt in its statement of financial position at 30 April 2011 on the basis that the loan was not in default at the end of the reporting period as the bondholders had issued waivers and had not sought redemption. (6 marks)
(b) Alexandra enters into contracts with both customers and suppliers. The supplier solves system problems and provides new releases and updates for software. Alexandra provides maintenance services for its customers. In previous years, Alexandra recognised revenue and related costs on software maintenance contracts when the customer was invoiced, which was at the beginning of the contract period. Contracts typically run for two years.
During 2010, Alexandra had acquired Xavier Co, which recognised revenue, derived from a similar type of maintenance contract as Alexandra, on a straight-line basis over the term of the contract. Alexandra considered both its own and the policy of Xavier Co to comply with the requirements of IAS 18 Revenue but it decided to adopt the practice of Xavier Co for itself and the group. Alexandra concluded that the two recognition methods did not, in substance, represent two different accounting policies and did not, therefore, consider adoption of the new practice to be a change in policy.
In the year to 30 April 2011, Alexandra recognised revenue (and the related costs) on a straight-line basis over the contract term, treating this as a change in an accounting estimate. As a result, revenue and cost of sales were adjusted, reducing the year’s profits by some $6 million. (5 marks)
(c) Alexandra has a two-tier board structure consisting of a management and a supervisory board. Alexandra remunerates its board members as follows:
– Annual base salary
– Variable annual compensation (bonus)
– Share options
In the group financial statements, within the related parties note under IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures, Alexandra disclosed the total remuneration paid to directors and non-executive directors and a total for each of these boards. No further breakdown of the remuneration was provided.
The management board comprises both the executive and non-executive directors. The remuneration of the non-executive directors, however, was not included in the key management disclosures. Some members of the supervisory and management boards are of a particular nationality. Alexandra was of the opinion that in that jurisdiction, it is not acceptable to provide information about remuneration that could be traced back to individuals. Consequently, Alexandra explained that it had provided the related party information in the annual accounts in an ambiguous way to prevent users of the financial statements from tracing remuneration information back to specific individuals. (5 marks)
(d) Alexandra’s pension plan was accounted for as a defined benefit plan in 2010. In the year ended 30 April 2011, Alexandra changed the accounting method used for the scheme and accounted for it as a defined contribution plan, restating the comparative 2010 financial information. The effect of the restatement was significant. In the 2011 financial statements, Alexandra explained that, during the year, the arrangements underlying the retirement benefit plan had been subject to detailed review. Since the pension liabilities are fully insured and indexation of future liabilities can be limited up to and including the funds available in a special trust account set up for the plan, which is not at the disposal of Alexandra, the plan qualifies as a defined contribution plan under IAS 19 Employee Benefits rather than a defined benefit plan. Furthermore, the trust account is built up by the insurance company from the surplus yield on investments. The pension plan is an average pay plan in respect of which the entity pays insurance premiums to a third party insurance company to fund the plan. Every year 1% of the pension fund is built up and employees pay a contribution of 4% of their salary, with the employer paying the balance of the contribution. If an employee leaves Alexandra and transfers the pension to another fund, Alexandra is liable for, or is refunded the difference between the benefits the employee is entitled to and the insurance premiums paid. (7 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 3 for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
Required:
Discuss how the above transactions should be dealt with in the financial statements of Alexandra for the year ended 30 April 2011.
A.varnished
B.commenced
C.departed
D.projected
