题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
By the year 2010, scientist probably ______ a cure for cancer.
A．will be discovering
B．are discovering
C．will have discovered
D．have discovered
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“By the year 2010, scientist pr…”相关的问题
(a) IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors contains guidance on the use of accounting policies and accounting estimates.
Required:
Explain the basis on which the management of an entity must select its accounting policies and distinguish, with an example, between changes in accounting policies and changes in accounting estimates. (5 marks)
(b) The directors of Tunshill are disappointed by the draft profi t for the year ended 30 September 2010. The company’s assistant accountant has suggested two areas where she believes the reported profi t may be improved:
(i) A major item of plant that cost $20 million to purchase and install on 1 October 2007 is being depreciated on a straight-line basis over a fi ve-year period (assuming no residual value). The plant is wearing well and at the beginning of the current year (1 October 2009) the production manager believed that the plant was likely to last eight years in total (i.e. from the date of its purchase). The assistant accountant has calculated that, based on an eight-year life (and no residual value) the accumulated depreciation of the plant at 30 September 2010 would be $7·5 million ($20 million/8 years x 3). In the fi nancial statements for the year ended 30 September 2009, the accumulated depreciation was $8 million ($20 million/5 years x 2). Therefore, by adopting an eight-year life, Tunshill can avoid a depreciation charge in the current year and instead credit $0·5 million ($8 million – $7·5 million) to the income statement in the current year to improve the reported profi t. (5 marks)
(ii) Most of Tunshill’s competitors value their inventory using the average cost (AVCO) basis, whereas Tunshill uses the fi rst in fi rst out (FIFO) basis. The value of Tunshill’s inventory at 30 September 2010 (on the FIFO basis) is $20 million, however on the AVCO basis it would be valued at $18 million. By adopting the same method (AVCO) as its competitors, the assistant accountant says the company would improve its profi t for the year ended 30 September 2010 by $2 million. Tunshill’s inventory at 30 September 2009 was reported as $15 million, however on the AVCO basis it would have been reported as $13·4 million. (5 marks)
Required:
Comment on the acceptability of the assistant accountant’s suggestions and quantify how they would affect the fi nancial statements if they were implemented under IFRS. Ignore taxation.
Note: the mark allocation is shown against each of the two items above.
(a) Apex is a publicly listed supermarket chain. During the current year it started the building of a new store. The directors are aware that in accordance with IAS 23 Borrowing costs certain borrowing costs have to be capitalised.
Required:
Explain the circumstances when, and the amount at which, borrowing costs should be capitalised in accordance with IAS 23. (5 marks)
(b) Details relating to construction of Apex’s new store:
Apex issued a $10 million unsecured loan with a coupon (nominal) interest rate of 6% on 1 April 2009. The loan is redeemable at a premium which means the loan has an effective fi nance cost of 7？5% per annum. The loan was specifi cally issued to fi nance the building of the new store which meets the defi nition of a qualifying asset in IAS 23. Construction of the store commenced on 1 May 2009 and it was completed and ready for use on 28 February 2010, but did not open for trading until 1 April 2010. During the year trading at Apex’s other stores was below expectations so Apex suspended the construction of the new store for a two-month period during July and August 2009. The proceeds of the loan were temporarily invested for the month of April 2009 and earned interest of $40,000.
Required:
Calculate the net borrowing cost that should be capitalised as part of the cost of the new store and the fi nance cost that should be reported in the income statement for the year ended 31 March 2010. (5 marks)
(i) On 1 July 2010, the factory had a carrying amount of $3·6 million and is expected to be sold for net proceeds of $5 million. On the same date the plant had a carrying amount of $2·8 million, but it is anticipated that it will only realise net proceeds of $500,000.
(ii) Of the employees affected by the closure, the majority will be made redundant at cost of $750,000, the remainder will be retrained at a cost of $200,000 and given work in one of the company’s other operations.
(iii) Trading losses from 1 July to 30 September 2010 are expected to be $600,000 and from this date to the closure on 31 January 2011 a further $1 million of trading losses are expected.
Required:
Explain how the decision to close the furniture making operation should be treated in Manco’s fi nancial statements for the years ending 30 September 2010 and 2011. Your answer should quantify the amounts involved.
Required:
(a) (i) Discuss the approach taken by IFRS 9 in measuring and classifying financial assets and the main effect that IFRS 9 will have on accounting for financial assets. (11 marks)
(ii) Grainger, a public limited company, has decided to adopt IFRS 9 prior to January 2012 and has decided to restate comparative information under IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. The entity has an investment in a financial asset which was carried at amortised cost under IAS 39 but will be valued at fair value through profit and loss (FVTPL) under IFRS 9. The carrying value of the assets was $105,000 on 30 April 2010 and $110,400 on 30 April 2011. The fair value of the asset was $106,500 on 30 April 2010 and $111,000 on 30 April 2011. Grainger has determined that the asset will be valued at FVTPL at 30 April 2011.
Required:
Discuss how the financial asset will be accounted for in the financial statements of Grainger in the year ended 30 April 2011. (4 marks)
(b) Recently, criticisms have been made against the current IFRS impairment model for financial assets (the incurred loss model). The issue with the incurred loss model is that impairment losses (and resulting write-downs in the reported value of financial assets) can only be recognised when there is evidence that they exist and have been incurred. Reporting entities are not allowed currently to consider the effects of expected losses. There is a view that earlier recognition of loan losses could potentially reduce the problems incurred in a credit crisis.
Grainger has a portfolio of loans of $5 million which was initially recognised on 1 May 2010. The loans mature in 10 years and carry an interest rate of 16%. Grainger estimates that no loans will default in the first two years, but from the third year onwards, loans will default at an annual rate of about 9%. If the loans default as expected, the rate of return from the portfolio will be approximately 9·07%. The number of loans are fixed without any new lending or any other impairment provisions.
Required:
(i) Discuss briefly the issues related to considering the effects of expected losses in dealing with impairment of financial assets. (4 marks)
(ii) Calculate the impact on the financial statements up to the year ended 30 April 2013 if Grainger anticipated the expected losses on the loan portfolio in year three. (4 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 4 for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
(a) The following figures have been calculated from the financial statements (including comparatives) of Barstead for
the year ended 30 September 2009:
increase in profit after taxation 80%
increase in (basic) earnings per share 5%
increase in diluted earnings per share 2%
Required:
Explain why the three measures of earnings (profit) growth for the same company over the same period can
give apparently differing impressions. (4 marks)
(b) The profit after tax for Barstead for the year ended 30 September 2009 was $15 million. At 1 October 2008 the company had in issue 36 million equity shares and a $10 million 8% convertible loan note. The loan note will mature in 2010 and will be redeemed at par or converted to equity shares on the basis of 25 shares for each $100 of loan note at the loan-note holders’ option. On 1 January 2009 Barstead made a fully subscribed rights issue of one new share for every four shares held at a price of $2·80 each. The market price of the equity shares of Barstead immediately before the issue was $3·80. The earnings per share (EPS) reported for the year ended 30 September 2008 was 35 cents.
Barstead’s income tax rate is 25%.
Required:
Calculate the (basic) EPS figure for Barstead (including comparatives) and the diluted EPS (comparatives not required) that would be disclosed for the year ended 30 September 2009. (6 marks)
(a) IAS 37 Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets prescribes the accounting and disclosure for those items named in its title.
Required:
Define provisions and contingent liabilities and briefly explain how IAS 37 improves consistency in financial reporting.
(b) The following items have arisen during the preparation of Borough’s draft financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2011:
(i) On 1 October 2010, Borough commenced the extraction of crude oil from a new well on the seabed. The cost of a 10-year licence to extract the oil was $50 million. At the end of the extraction, although not legally bound to do so, Borough intends to make good the damage the extraction has caused to the seabed environment. This intention has been communicated to parties external to Borough. The cost of this will be in two parts: a fixed amount of $20 million and a variable amount of 2 cents per barrel extracted. Both of these amounts are based on their present values as at 1 October 2010 (discounted at 8%) of the estimated costs in 10 years’ time. In the year to 30 September 2011 Borough extracted 150 million barrels of oil.
(ii) Borough owns the whole of the equity share capital of its subsidiary Hamlet. Hamlet’s statement of financial position includes a loan of $25 million that is repayable in five years’ time. $15 million of this loan is secured on Hamlet’s property and the remaining $10 million is guaranteed by Borough in the event of a default by Hamlet. The economy in which Hamlet operates is currently experiencing a deep recession, the effects of which are that the current value of its property is estimated at $12 million and there are concerns over whether Hamlet can survive the recession and therefore repay the loan.
Required:
Describe, and quantify where possible, how items (i) and (ii) above should be treated in Borough’s statement of financial position for the year ended 30 September 2011.
In the case of item (ii) only, distinguish between Borough’s entity and consolidated financial statements and refer to any disclosure notes. Your answer should only refer to the treatment of the loan and should not consider any impairment of Hamlet’s property or Borough’s investment in Hamlet.
Note: the treatment in the income statement is NOT required for any of the items.
The following mark allocation is provided as guidance for this requirement:
(i) 5 marks
(ii) 4 marks
(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.
Introduction and client background
You are an audit senior in Staple and Co and you are commencing the planning of the audit of Smoothbrush Paints Co for the year ending 31 August 2010.
Smoothbrush Paints Co is a paint manufacturer and has been trading for over 50 years, it operates from one central site, which includes the production facility, warehouse and administration ffices.
Smoothbrush sells all of its goods to large home improvement stores, with 60% being to one large chain store Homewares. The company has a one year contract to be the sole supplier of paint to Homewares. It secured the contract through signifi cantly reducing prices and offering a four-month credit period, the company’s normal credit period is one month.
Goods in/purchases
In recent years, Smoothbrush has reduced the level of goods directly manufactured and instead started to import paint from South Asia. Approximately 60% is imported and 40% manufactured. Within the production facility is a large amount of old plant and equipment that is now redundant and has minimal scrap value. Purchase orders for overseas paint are made six months in advance and goods can be in transit for up to two months. Smoothbrush accounts for the inventory when it receives the goods.
To avoid the disruption of a year end inventory count, Smoothbrush has this year introduced a continuous/perpetual inventory counting system. The warehouse has been divided into 12 areas and these are each to be counted once over the year. The counting team includes a member of the internal audit department and a warehouse staff member. The following procedures have been adopted;
1. The team prints the inventory quantities and descriptions from the system and these records are then compared to the inventory physically present.
2. Any discrepancies in relation to quantities are noted on the inventory sheets, including any items not listed on the sheets but present in the warehouse area.
3. Any damaged or old items are noted and they are removed from the inventory sheets.
4. The sheets are then passed to the fi nance department for adjustments to be made to the records when the count has fi nished.
5. During the counts there will continue to be inventory movements with goods arriving and leaving the warehouse.
At the year end it is proposed that the inventory will be based on the underlying records. Traditionally Smoothbrush has maintained an inventory provision based on 1% of the inventory value, but management feels that as inventory is being reviewed more regularly it no longer needs this provision.
Finance Director
In May 2010 Smoothbrush had a dispute with its fi nance director (FD) and he immediately left the company. The company has temporarily asked the fi nancial controller to take over the role while they recruit a permanent replacement. The old FD has notifi ed Smoothbrush that he intends to sue for unfair dismissal. The company is not proposing to make any provision or disclosures for this, as they are confi dent the claim has no merit.
Required:
(a) Identify and explain the audit risks identifi ed at the planning stage of the audit of Smoothbrush Paints Co. (10 marks)
(b) Discuss the importance of assessing risks at the planning stage of an audit. (4 marks)
(c) List and explain suitable controls that should operate over the continuous/perpetual inventory counting system, to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the existing inventory records at Smoothbrush Paints Co. (10 marks)
(d) Describe THREE substantive procedures the auditor of Smoothbrush Paints Co should perform. at the year end in confi rming each of the following:
(i) The valuation of inventory; (3 marks)
(ii) The completeness of provisions or contingent liabilities. (3 marks)
Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted
Your client, Eric, requires advice on the capital gains tax implications arising from the receipt of insurance proceeds and the disposal of some shares, and the inheritance tax reliefs available in respect of assets in his estate at death. His son Zak requires advice regarding the application of the personal service company (IR35) legislation.
Eric:
– Is UK resident and domiciled.
– Is a higher rate taxpayer.
– Is in ill health and is expected to die within the next few months.
Capital transactions in the tax year 2014/15:
– Eric made no disposals for capital gains tax purposes in the tax year 2014/15 other than those detailed below.
– Eric received insurance proceeds of ￡10,000 following damage to a valuable painting.
– Eric sold half of his shareholding in Malaga plc for ￡11·50 per share.
Damaged painting:
– Eric purchased the painting for ￡46,000 in July 2012.
– The painting was damaged in October 2014 such that immediately afterwards its value fell to ￡38,000.
– The insurance proceeds of ￡10,000 were received by Eric on 1 December 2014.
– Eric has not had the painting repaired.
Malaga plc shares:
– Malaga plc is a quoted trading company with 200,000 issued shares.
– 80% of Malaga plc’s chargeable assets have always been chargeable business assets.
– Eric was given 12,000 shares in Malaga plc by his sister on 1 April 2010, when they were valued at ￡126,000.
– Eric’s sister had purchased the shares for ￡96,000 on 1 March 2009.
– Gift relief was claimed in respect of the gift of the shares to Eric on 1 April 2010.
– Eric paid the inheritance tax arising in respect of this gift following his sister’s death on 1 September 2011.
– Eric has never worked for Malaga plc.
– Eric sold 6,000 shares in Malaga plc on 1 March 2015.
Assets owned by Eric and a previous lifetime gift:
– Eric owns farmland in the UK, which has been leased to a tenant farmer for the last ten years.
– The farmland has a market value of ￡420,000 and an agricultural value of ￡340,000.
– Eric’s other assets, excluding the remaining Malaga plc shares, are valued at ￡408,000.
– Eric has made only one previous lifetime gift, of ￡60,000 cash to his son Zak on 1 July 2009.
Zak:
– Is the sole shareholder, director and employee of Yoyo Ltd, a company which provides consultancy services.
– In the year ended 31 March 2016, Yoyo Ltd’s gross fee income from relevant engagements performed by Zak will be ￡110,000.
– In the tax year 2015/16, Zak will draw a salary of ￡24,000 and dividends of ￡50,000 from Yoyo Ltd.
– Neither Yoyo Ltd nor Zak has any other source of income.
Required:
(a) Calculate Eric’s total after-tax proceeds in respect of the two capital gains tax disposals in the tax year 2014/15. (6 marks)
(b) (i) On the assumption that Eric dies on 31 March 2016, advise on the availability and effect (if any), of agricultural property relief, business property relief and quick succession relief in respect of the farmland and the retained shares in Malaga plc.
Note: You are not required to prepare calculations for this part of the question. (6 marks)
(ii) Explain, with the aid of calculations, the impact on the inheritance tax liability arising on Eric’s death if Eric does not die until 1 August 2016. (3 marks)
(c) Calculate Zak’s taxable income for the tax year 2015/16 if the personal service company (IR35) legislation were to apply to the fee income received by Yoyo Ltd. (5 marks)
Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted
You are a manager in the audit department of Beech & Co, responsible for the audits of Fir Co, Spruce Co and Pine Co. Each company has a financial year ended 31 July 2011, and the audits of all companies are nearing completion. The following issues have arisen in relation to the audit of accounting estimates and fair values:
(a) Fir Co
Fir Co is a company involved in energy production. It owns several nuclear power stations, which have a remaining estimated useful life of 20 years. Fir Co intends to decommission the power stations at the end of their useful life and the statement of financial position at 31 July 2011 recognises a material provision in respect of decommissioning costs of $97 million (2010 – $110 million). A brief note to the financial statements discloses the opening and closing value of the provision but no other information is provided.
Required: Comment on the matters that should be considered, and explain the audit evidence you should expect to find in your file review in respect of the decommissioning provision. (8 marks)
(b) Spruce Co
Spruce Co is also involved in energy production. It has a trading division which manages a portfolio of complex financial instruments such as derivatives. The portfolio is material to the financial statements. Due to the specialist nature of these financial instruments, an auditor’s expert was engaged to assist in obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence relating to the fair value of the financial instruments. The objectivity, capabilities and competence of the expert were confirmed prior to their engagement.
Required:
Explain the procedures that should be performed in evaluating the adequacy of the auditor’s expert’s work. (5 marks)
(c) Pine Co
Pine Co operates a warehousing and distribution service, and owns 120 properties. During the year ended 31 July 2011, management changed its estimate of the useful life of all properties, extending the life on average by 10 years. The financial statements contain a retrospective adjustment, which increases opening non-current assets and equity by a material amount. Information in respect of the change in estimate has not been disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.
Required:
Identify and explain the potential implications for the auditor’s report of the accounting treatment of the change in accounting estimates. (5 marks)
1. ‘Good’, allowing students to continue with no issues;
2. ‘Some concerns’, meaning students are counselled and then allowed to continue; and,
3. ‘Poor’, where students are dismissed from the audit practice.
The appraisal committee is comprised of three people: managing partner Jack Hu, the training manager (both of whom are professional accountants) and the person responsible for human resources. The committee receives confidential reports on each student and makes decisions based on the views of relevant engagement partners and also exam results. It is normally the training manager who makes the recommendation and in most cases his appraisal is agreed and then acted upon accordingly. Because the appraisals are confidential between the student and the firm, the list of students and their appraisal categories are not publicised within the firm.
When the 2010 intake was being appraised last year, one student was appraised by the training manager as ‘poor’ but was not dismissed. Polly Shah was unpopular among other students because she was considered lazy and technically weak. She also failed a number of her exams. Other students who were appraised as ‘poor’ were dismissed, but Polly received a brief counselling session from Jack Hu and then returned to her duties. Polly stayed for another year and then, having failed more exams, left Jojo to pursue other career interests outside accounting.
Polly’s departure triggered some discussion amongst Jojo’s partners as to why she had been retained when other poor performers had not. It later emerged that Jack Hu was a close friend of Polly’s parents and had enjoyed free holidays in the Shah family’s villa for several years. Because he was the managing partner, Mr Hu was able to insist on retaining Polly, despite the objections of the training manager and the human resources representative, although the training manager was reported to be furious at the decision to retain Polly.
Required:
(a) Define ‘conflict of interest’ and assess the consequences of Jack Hu’s behaviour after Polly Shah’s appraisal. (10 marks)
(b) Describe four ethical safeguards that could be used in Jojo to prevent a recurrence of the events like those described in the case. (8 marks)
(c) The case raises issues of the importance of senior management performance measurement. In a public company, this refers to directors, and in a privately-owned partnership like Jojo, it refers to partners. The managing partner (Mr Hu’s position) is equivalent to the role of chief executive.
Required:
Explain the typical criteria used in the performance measurement of individual directors and discuss the reasons why individual performance measurement of partners may be difficult to implement at Jojo. (7 marks)
