(b) Prepare a consolidated balance sheet as at 31 October 2005 for the Lateral Group in accordance withInternational Financial Reporting Standards. (21 marks)

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.

正确答案：
(b) Inventory, Goods sold and Investment property
The inventory and trade payable initially would be recorded at 8 million euros ÷ 1·6, i.e. $5 million. At the year end, the
amount payable is still outstanding and is retranslated at 1 dollar = 1·3 euros, i.e. $6·2 million. An exchange loss of
$(6·2 – 5) million, i.e. $1·2 million would be reported in profit or loss. The inventory would be recorded at $5 million at the
year end unless it is impaired in value.
The sale of goods would be recorded at 4 million euros ÷ 1·6, i.e. $2·5 million as a sale and as a trade receivable. Payment
is received on 31 October 2006 in euros and the actual value of euros received will be 4 million euros ÷ 1·3,
i.e. $3·1 million.
Thus a gain on exchange of $0·6 million will be reported in profit or loss.
The investment property should be recognised on 1 November 2005 at 28 million euros ÷ 1·4, i.e. $20 million. At
31 October 2006, the property should be recognised at 24 million euros ÷ 1·3, i.e. $18·5 million. The decrease in fair value
should be recognised in profit and loss as a loss on investment property. The property is a non-monetary asset and any foreign
currency element is not recognised separately. When a gain or loss on a non-monetary item is recognised in profit or loss,
any exchange component of that gain or loss is also recognised in profit or loss. If any gain or loss is recognised in equity ona non-monetary asset, any exchange gain is also recognised in equity.

正确答案：

(b) IAS21 ‘The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates’ requires goodwill arising on the acquisition of a foreign operation
and fair value adjustments to acquired assets and liabilities to be treated as belonging to the foreign operation. They should
be expressed in the functional currency of the foreign operation and translated at the closing rate at each balance sheet date.
Effectively goodwill is treated as a foreign currency asset which is retranslated at the closing rate. In this case the goodwillarising on the acquisition of Briars would be treated as follows:

At 31 May 2006, the goodwill will be retranslated at 2·5 euros to the dollar to give a figure of $4·4 million. Therefore this
will be the figure for goodwill in the balance sheet and an exchange loss of $1·4 million recorded in equity (translation
reserve). The impairment of goodwill will be expensed in profit or loss to the value of $1·2 million. (The closing rate has been
used to translate the impairment; however, there may be an argument for using the average rate.)
The loan to Briars will effectively be classed as a financial liability measured at amortised cost. It is the default category for
financial liabilities that do not meet the definition of financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. For most entities,
most financial liabilities will fall into this category. When a financial liability is recognised initially in the balance sheet, the
liability is measured at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which a liability can be settled, between knowledgeable, willing
parties in an arm’s length transaction. In other words, fair value is an actual or estimated transaction price on the reporting
date for a transaction taking place between unrelated parties that have adequate information about the asset or liability being
measured.
Since fair value is a market transaction price, on initial recognition fair value generally is assumed to equal the amount of
consideration paid or received for the financial asset or financial liability. Accordingly, IAS39 specifies that the best evidence
of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition generally is the transaction price. However for longer-term
receivables or payables that do not pay interest or pay a below-market interest, IAS39 does require measurement initially at
the present value of the cash flows to be received or paid.
Thus in Briars financial statements the following entries will be made:

正确答案：
(b) Management judgement may have a greater impact under IFRS than generally was the case under national GAAP. IFRS
utilises fair values extensively. Management have to use their judgement in selecting valuation methods and formulating
assumptions when dealing with such areas as onerous contracts, share-based payments, pensions, intangible assets acquired
in business combinations and impairment of assets. Differences in methods or assumptions can have a major impact on
amounts recognised in financial statements. IAS1 expects companies to disclose the sensitivity of carrying amounts to the
methods, assumptions and estimates underpinning their calculation where there is a significant risk of material adjustment
to their carrying amounts within the next financial year. Often management’s judgement is that there is no ‘significant risk’
and they often fail to disclose the degree of estimation or uncertainty and thus comparability is affected.
In addition to the IFRSs themselves, a sound financial reporting infrastructure is required. This implies effective corporate
governance practices, high quality auditing standards and practices, and an effective enforcement or oversight mechanism.
Therefore, consistency and comparability of IFRS financial statements will also depend on the robust nature of the other
elements of the financial reporting infrastructure.
Many preparers of financial statements will have been trained in national GAAP and may not have been trained in the
principles underlying IFRS and this can lead to unintended inconsistencies when implementing IFRS especially where the
accounting profession does not have a CPD requirement. Additionally where the regulatory system of a country is not well
developed, there may not be sufficient market information to utilise fair value measurements and thus this could lead to
hypothetical markets being created or the use of mathematical modelling which again can lead to inconsistencies because of
lack of experience in those countries of utilising these techniques. This problem applies to other assessments or estimates
relating to such things as actuarial valuations, investment property valuations, impairment testing, etc.
The transition to IFRS can bring significant improvement to the quality of financial performance and improve comparability
worldwide. However, there are issues still remaining which can lead to inconsistency and lack of comparability with those
financial statements.

正确答案：

正确答案：
(b) Internal control statement
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines are to disclose in the annual report as follows:
A statement of management’s responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting
for the company. This will always include the nature and extent of involvement by the chairman and chief executive, but may
also specify the other members of the board involved in the internal controls over financial reporting. The purpose is for
shareholders to be clear about who is accountable for the controls.
A statement identifying the framework used by management to evaluate the effectiveness of this internal control. This will
usually involve a description of the key metrics, measurement methods (e.g. rates of compliance, fair value measures, etc)
and tolerances allowed within these. Within a rules-based environment, these are likely to be underpinned by law.
Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of this internal control as at the end of the company’s most recent fiscal year.
This may involve reporting on rates of compliance, failures, costs, resources committed and outputs (if measurable) achieved.
A statement that its auditor has issued an attestation report on management’s assessment. Any qualification to the attestation
should be reported in this statement.
Tutorial note: guidance from other corporate governance codes is also acceptable.

正确答案：

(iii) The effect of the restructuring on the group’s ability to recover its input tax
Prior to the restructuring
Rapier Ltd and Switch Ltd make wholly standard rated supplies and are in a position to recover all of their input tax
other than that which is specifically blocked. Dirk Ltd and Flick Ltd are unable to register for VAT as they do not make
taxable supplies. Accordingly, they cannot recover any of their input tax.
Following the restructuring
Rapier Ltd will be carrying on four separate trades, two of which involve the making of exempt supplies such that it will
be a partially exempt trader. Its recoverable input tax will be calculated as follows.
– Input tax in respect of inputs wholly attributable to taxable supplies is recoverable.
– Input tax in respect of inputs wholly attributable to exempt supplies cannot be recovered (subject to the de minimis
limits below).
– A proportion of the company’s residual input tax, i.e. input tax in respect of inputs which cannot be directly
attributed to particular supplies, is recoverable. The proportion is taxable supplies (VAT exclusive) divided by total
supplies (VAT exclusive). This proportion is rounded up to the nearest whole percentage where total residual input
tax is no more than ￡400,000 per quarter.
The balance of the residual input tax cannot be recovered (subject to the de minimis limits below).
– If the de minimis limits are satisfied, Rapier Ltd will be able to recover all of its input tax (other than that which is
specifically blocked) including that which relates to exempt supplies. The de minimis limits are satisfied where the
irrecoverable input tax:
– is less than or equal to ￡625 per month on average; and
– is less than or equal to 50% of total input tax.
The impact of the restructuring on the group’s ability to recover its input tax will depend on the level of supplies made
by the different businesses and the amounts of input tax involved. The restructuring could result in the group being able
to recover all of its input tax (if the de minimis limits are satisfied). Alternatively the amount of irrecoverable input tax
may be more or less than the amounts which cannot be recovered by Dirk Ltd and Flick Ltd under the existing group
structure.

正确答案：
(d) Principal audit work
(i) Trade receivables
■ Review of agreements to determine the volume rebates terms. For example,
– the % discounts;
– the volumes to which they apply;
– the period over which they accumulate;
– settlement method (e.g. by credit note or other off-set or repayment).
■ Direct positive confirmation of a value-weighted sample of balances (i.e. larger amounts) to identify potential
overstatement (e.g. due to discounts earned not being awarded).
■ Monitoring of after-date cash receipts and matching against amounts due as shortfalls may indicate disputed
amounts.
■ Review of after-date credit notes to ensure adequate allowance (accrual) is made for discounts earned in the year
to 30 June 2006.
■ Credit risk analysis of individually significant balances and assessment of impairment losses (where carrying value
is less than the present value of the estimated cash flows discounted at the effective interest rate).

正确答案：
(b) Goodwill
(i) Matters
■ Cost of goodwill, $1·8 million, represents 3·4% consolidated total assets and is therefore material.
Tutorial note: Any assessments of materiality of goodwill against amounts in Aragon’s financial statements are
meaningless since goodwill only exists in the consolidated financial statements of Seymour.
■ It is correct that the goodwill is not being amortised (IFRS 3 Business Combinations). However, it should be tested
at least annually for impairment, by management.
■ Aragon has incurred losses amounting to $1·1 million since it was acquired (two years ago). The write-off of this
amount against goodwill in the consolidated financial statements would be material (being 61% cost of goodwill,
8·3% PBT and 2·1% total assets).
■ The cost of the investment ($4·5 million) in Seymour’s separate financial statements will also be material and
should be tested for impairment.
■ The fair value of net assets acquired was only $2·7 million ($4·5 million less $1·8 million). Therefore the fair
value less costs to sell of Aragon on other than a going concern basis will be less than the carrying amount of the
investment (i.e. the investment is impaired by at least the amount of goodwill recognised on acquisition).
■ In assessing recoverable amount, value in use (rather than fair value less costs to sell) is only relevant if the going
concern assumption is appropriate for Aragon.
■ Supporting Aragon financially may result in Seymour being exposed to actual and/or contingent liabilities that
should be provided for/disclosed in Seymour’s financial statements in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions,
Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying values of cost of investment and goodwill arising on acquisition to prior year audit working papers and
financial statements.
■ A copy of Aragon’s draft financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2006 showing loss for year.
■ Management’s impairment test of Seymour’s investment in Aragon and of the goodwill arising on consolidation at
30 September 2006. That is a comparison of the present value of the future cash flows expected to be generated
by Aragon (a cash-generating unit) compared with the cost of the investment (in Seymour’s separate financial
statements).
■ Results of any impairment tests on Aragon’s assets extracted from Aragon’s working paper files.
■ Analytical procedures on future cash flows to confirm their reasonableness (e.g. by comparison with cash flows for
the last two years).
■ Bank report for audit purposes for any guarantees supporting Aragon’s loan facilities.
■ A copy of Seymour’s ‘comfort letter’ confirming continuing financial support of Aragon for the foreseeable future.

正确答案：
(d) Professional accountant’s liability
Liability for reporting on PFI
Independent accountants may be required to report on PFI for many reasons (e.g. to help secure a bank loan). Such forecasts
and projections are inherently unreliable. If the forecast or projection does not materialise, and the client or lenders (or
investors) consequently sustain financial loss, the accountant may face lawsuits claiming financial loss.
Courts in different jurisdictions use various criteria to define the group of persons to whom independent accountants may be
held liable for providing a report on an inaccurate forecast or projection. The most common of these are that an accountant
is liable to persons with whom there is proximity:
(i) only (i.e. the client who engaged the independent accountant);
(ii) or whose relationship with the accountant sufficiently approaches privity;
(iii) and to persons or members of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance the accountant supplied the
information or knew that the recipient of the information intended to supply it;
(iv) and to persons who reasonably can be foreseen to rely on the information.
Measures to reduce liability
As significant assumptions will be essential to a reader’s understanding of a financial forecast, the independent accountant
should ensure that they are adequately disclosed and clearly stated to be the management’s responsibility. Hypothetical
assumptions should be clearly distinguished from best estimates.
The introduction to any forecast (and/or report thereon) should include a caveat that the prospective results may not be
attained. Specific and extensive warnings (‘the actual results … will vary’) and disclaimers (‘we do not express an opinion’)
may be effective in protecting an independent accountant sued for inaccuracies in forecasts or projections that they have
reported on.
Any report to a third party should state:
■ for whom it is prepared, who is entitled to rely on it (if anyone) and for what purpose;
■ that the engagement was undertaken in accordance with the engagement terms;
■ the work performed and the findings.
An independent accountant’s report should avoid inappropriate and open-ended wording, for example, ‘we certify …’ and ‘we
obtained all the explanations we considered necessary’.
Engagement terms to report on PFI should include an appropriate liability cap that is reasonable given the specific
circumstances of the engagement.
The independent accountant may be able to obtain indemnity from a client in respect of claims from third parties. Such ‘hold
harmless’ clauses obligate the client to indemnify the independent accountant from third party claims.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Enquiries in respect of the external valuer
Enquiries would need to be made for two main reasons, firstly to determine the competence, and secondly the objectivity
of the valuer. ISA 620 Using the Work of an Expert contains guidance in this area.
Competence
Enquiries could include:
– Is the valuer a member of a recognised professional body, for example a nationally or internationally recognised
institute of registered surveyors?
– Does the valuer possess any necessary licence to carry out valuations for companies?
– How long has the valuer been a member of the recognised body, or how long has the valuer been licensed under
that body?
– How much experience does the valuer have in providing valuations of the particular type of investment properties
held by Poppy Co?
– Does the valuer have specific experience of evaluating properties for the purpose of including their fair value within
the financial statements?
– Is there any evidence of the reputation of the valuer, e.g. professional references, recommendations from other
companies for which a valuation service has been provided?
– How much experience, if any, does the valuer have with Poppy Co?
Using the above enquiries, the auditor is trying to form. an opinion as to the relevance and reliability of the valuation
provided. ISA 500 Audit Evidence requires that the auditor gathers evidence that is both sufficient and appropriate. The
auditor needs to ensure that the fair values provided by the valuer for inclusion in the financial statements have been
arrived at using appropriate knowledge and skill which should be evidenced by the valuer being a member of a
professional body, and, if necessary, holding a licence under that body.
It is important that the fair values have been arrived at using methods allowed under IAS 40 Investment Property. If any
other valuation method has been used then the value recognised in the statement of financial position may not be in
accordance with financial reporting standards. Thus it is important to understand whether the valuer has experience
specifically in providing valuations that comply with IAS 40, and how many times the valuer has appraised properties
similar to those owned by Poppy Co.
In gauging the reliability of the fair value, the auditor may wish to consider how Poppy Co decided to appoint this
particular valuer, e.g. on the basis of a recommendation or after receiving references from companies for which
valuations had previously been provided.
It will also be important to consider how familiar the valuer is with Poppy Co’s business and environment, as a way to
assess the reliability and appropriateness of any assumptions used in the valuation technique.
Objectivity
Enquiries could include:
– Does the valuer have any financial interest in Poppy Co, e.g. shares held directly or indirectly in the company?
– Does the valuer have any personal relationship with any director or employee of Poppy Co?
– Is the fee paid for the valuation service reasonable and a fair, market based price?
With these enquiries, the auditor is gaining assurance that the valuer will perform. the valuation from an independent
point of view. If the valuer had a financial interest in Poppy Co, there would be incentive to manipulate the valuation in
a way best suited to the financial statements of the company. Equally if the valuer had a personal relationship with a
senior member of staff at Poppy Co, the valuer may feel pressured to give a favourable opinion on the valuation of the
properties.
The level of fee paid is important. It should be commensurate with the market rate paid for this type of valuation. If the
valuer was paid in excess of what might be considered a normal fee, it could indicate that the valuer was encouraged,
or even bribed, to provide a favourable valuation.

正确答案：

(a) Critical appraisal of the draft audit report

Type of opinion

When an auditor issues an opinion expressing that the financial statements ‘do not give a true and fair view’, this represents an adverse opinion. The paragraph explaining the modification should, therefore, be titled ‘Basis of Adverse Opinion’ rather than simply ‘Basis of Modified Opinion’.

An adverse opinion means that the auditor considers the misstatement to be material and pervasive to the financial statements of the Hopper Group. According to ISA 705 Modifications to Opinions in the Independent Auditor’s Report, pervasive matters are those which affect a substantial proportion of the financial statements or fundamentally affect the users’ understanding of the financial statements. It is unlikely that the failure to recognise contingent consideration is pervasive; the main effect would be to understate goodwill and liabilities. This would not be considered a substantial proportion of the financial statements, neither would it be fundamental to understanding the Hopper Group’s performance and position.

However, there is also some uncertainty as to whether the matter is even material. If the matter is determined to be material but not pervasive, then a qualified opinion would be appropriate on the basis of a material misstatement. If the matter is not material, then no modification would be necessary to the audit opinion.

Wording of opinion/report

The auditor’s reference to ‘the acquisition of the new subsidiary’ is too vague; the Hopper Group may have purchased a number of subsidiaries which this phrase could relate to. It is important that the auditor provides adequate description of the event and in these circumstances it would be appropriate to name the subsidiary referred to.

The auditor has not quantified the amount of the contingent element of the consideration. For the users to understand the potential implications of any necessary adjustments, they need to know how much the contingent consideration will be if it becomes payable. It is a requirement of ISA 705 that the auditor quantifies the financial effects of any misstatements, unless it is impracticable to do so.

In addition to the above point, the auditor should provide more description of the financial effects of the misstatement, including full quantification of the effect of the required adjustment to the assets, liabilities, incomes, revenues and equity of the Hopper Group.

The auditor should identify the note to the financial statements relevant to the contingent liability disclosure rather than just stating ‘in the note’. This will improve the understandability and usefulness of the contents of the audit report.

The use of the term ‘we do not feel that the treatment is correct’ is too vague and not professional. While there may be some interpretation necessary when trying to apply financial reporting standards to unique circumstances, the expression used is ambiguous and may be interpreted as some form. of disclaimer by the auditor with regard to the correct accounting treatment. The auditor should clearly explain how the treatment applied in the financial statements has departed from the requirements of the relevant standard.

Tutorial note: As an illustration to the above point, an appropriate wording would be: ‘Management has not recognised the acquisition-date fair value of contingent consideration as part of the consideration transferred in exchange for the acquiree, which constitutes a departure from International Financial Reporting Standards.’

The ambiguity is compounded by the use of the phrase ‘if this is the case, it would be appropriate to adjust the goodwill’. This once again suggests that the correct treatment is uncertain and perhaps open to interpretation.

If the auditor wishes to refer to a specific accounting standard they should refer to its full title. Therefore instead of referring to ‘the relevant standard’ they should refer to International Financial Reporting Standard 3 Business Combinations.

The opinion paragraph requires an appropriate heading. In this case the auditors have issued an adverse opinion and the paragraph should be headed ‘Adverse Opinion’.

As with the basis paragraph, the opinion paragraph lacks authority; suggesting that the required adjustments ‘may’ materially affect the financial statements implies that there is a degree of uncertainty. This is not the case; the amount of the contingent consideration will be disclosed in the relevant purchase agreement, so the auditor should be able to determine whether the required adjustments are material or not. Regardless, the sentence discussing whether the balance is material or not is not required in the audit report as to warrant inclusion in the report the matter must be considered material. The disclosure of the nature and financial effect of the misstatement in the basis paragraph is sufficient.

Finally, the emphasis of matter paragraph should not be included in the audit report. An emphasis of matter paragraph is only used to draw attention to an uncertainty/matter of fundamental importance which is correctly accounted for and disclosed in the financial statements. An emphasis of matter is not required in this case for the following reasons:

– Emphasis of matter is only required to highlight matters which the auditor believes are fundamental to the users’ understanding of the business. An example may be where a contingent liability exists which is so significant it could lead to the closure of the reporting entity. That is not the case with the Hopper Group; the contingent liability does not appear to be fundamental.

– Emphasis of matter is only used for matters where the auditor has obtained sufficient appropriate evidence that the matter is not materially misstated in the financial statements. If the financial statements are materially misstated, in this regard the matter would be fully disclosed by the auditor in the basis of qualified/adverse opinion paragraph and no emphasis of matter is necessary.

(b) Communication from the component auditor

The qualified opinion due to insufficient evidence may be a significant matter for the Hopper Group audit. While the possible adjustments relating to the current year may not be material to the Hopper Group, the inability to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence with regard to a material matter in Seurat Sweeteners Co’s financial statements may indicate a control deficiency which the auditor was not aware of at the planning stage and it could indicate potential problems with regard to the integrity of management, which could also indicate a potential fraud. It could also indicate an unwillingness of management to provide information, which could create problems for future audits, particularly if research and development costs increase in future years. If the group auditor suspects that any of these possibilities are true, they may need to reconsider their risk assessment and whether the audit procedures performed are still appropriate.

If the detail provided in the communication from the component auditor is insufficient, the group auditor should first discuss the matter with the component auditor to see whether any further information can be provided. The group auditor can request further working papers from the component auditor if this is necessary. However, if Seurat Sweeteners has not been able to provide sufficient appropriate evidence, it is unlikely that this will be effective.

If the discussions with the component auditor do not provide satisfactory responses to evaluate the potential impact on the Hopper Group, the group auditor may need to communicate with either the management of Seurat Sweeteners or the Hopper Group to obtain necessary clarification with regard to the matter.

Following these procedures, the group auditor needs to determine whether they have sufficient appropriate evidence to draw reasonable conclusions on the Hopper Group’s financial statements. If they believe the lack of information presents a risk of material misstatement in the group financial statements, they can request that further audit procedures be performed, either by the component auditor or by themselves.

Ultimately the group engagement partner has to evaluate the effect of the inability to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence on the audit opinion of the Hopper Group. The matter relates to research expenses totalling $1·2 million, which represents 0·2% of the profit for the year and 0·03% of the total assets of the Hopper Group. It is therefore not material to the Hopper Group’s financial statements. For this reason no modification to the audit report of the Hopper Group would be required as this does not represent a lack of sufficient appropriate evidence with regard to a matter which is material to the Group financial statements.

Although this may not have an impact on the Hopper Group audit opinion, this may be something the group auditor wishes to bring to the attention of those charged with governance. This would be particularly likely if the group auditor believed that this could indicate some form. of fraud in Seurat Sweeteners Co, a serious deficiency in financial reporting controls or if this could create problems for accepting future audits due to management’s unwillingness to provide access to accounting records.

(c) Quality control procedures prior to issuing the audit report

ISA 220 Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements and ISQC 1 Quality Control for Firms that Perform. Audits and Reviews of Historical Financial Information, and Other Assurance and Related Services Agreements require that an engagement quality control reviewer shall be appointed for audits of financial statements of listed entities. The audit engagement partner then discusses significant matters arising during the audit engagement with the engagement quality control reviewer.

The engagement quality control reviewer and the engagement partner should discuss the failure to recognise the contingent consideration and its impact on the auditor’s report. The engagement quality control reviewer must review the financial statements and the proposed auditor’s report, in particular focusing on the conclusions reached in formulating the auditor’s report and consideration of whether the proposed auditor’s opinion is appropriate. The audit documentation relating to the acquisition of Seurat Sweeteners Co will be carefully reviewed, and the reviewer is likely to consider whether procedures performed in relation to these balances were appropriate.

Given the listed status of the Hopper Group, any modification to the auditor’s report will be scrutinised, and the firm must be sure of any decision to modify the report, and the type of modification made. Once the engagement quality control reviewer has considered the necessity of a modification, they should consider whether a qualified or an adverse opinion is appropriate in the circumstances. This is an important issue, given that it requires judgement as to whether the matters would be material or pervasive to the financial statements.

The engagement quality control reviewer should ensure that there is adequate documentation regarding the judgements used in forming the final audit opinion, and that all necessary matters have been brought to the attention of those charged with governance.

The auditor’s report must not be signed and dated until the completion of the engagement quality control review.

Tutorial note: In the case of the Hopper Group’s audit, the lack of evidence in respect of research costs is unlikely to be discussed unless the audit engagement partner believes that the matter could be significant, for example, if they suspected the lack of evidence is being used to cover up a financial statements fraud.

正确答案：

正确答案：

Gow’s net assets
IAS36 ‘Impairment of Assets’, sets out the events that might indicate that an asset is impaired. These circumstances include
external events such as the decline in the market value of an asset and internal events such as a reduction in the cash flows
to be generated from an asset or cash generating unit. The loss of the only customer of a cash generating unit (power station)
would be an indication of the possible impairment of the cash generating unit. Therefore, the power station will have to be
impairment tested.
The recoverable amount will have to be determined and compared to the value given to the asset on the setting up of the
joint venture. The recoverable amount is the higher of the cash generating unit’s fair value less costs to sell, and its value-inuse.
The fair value less costs to sell will be $15 million which is the offer for the purchase of the power station ($16 million)
less the costs to sell ($1 million). The value-in-use is the discounted value of the future cash flows expected to arise from the
cash generating unit. The future dismantling costs should be provided for as it has been agreed with the government that it
will be dismantled. The cost should be included in the future cash flows for the purpose of calculating value-in-use and
provided for in the financial statements and the cost added to the property, plant and equipment ($4 million ($5m/1·064)).
The value-in-use based on a discount rate of 6 per cent is $21 million (working). Therefore, the recoverable amount is
$21 million which is higher than the carrying value of the cash generating unit ($20 million) and, therefore, the value of the
cash generating unit is not impaired when compared to the present carrying value of $20 million (value before impairment
test).
Additionally IAS39, ‘Financial Instruments: recognition and measurement’, says that an entity must assess at each balance
sheet date whether a financial asset is impaired. In this case the receivable of $7 million is likely to be impaired as Race is
going into administration. The present value of the estimated future cash flows will be calculated. Normally cash receipts from
trade receivables will not be discounted but because the amounts are not likely to be received for a year then the anticipated
cash payment is 80% of ($5 million × 1/1·06), i.e. $3·8 million. Thus a provision for the impairment of the trade receivables
of $3·2 million should be made. The intangible asset of $3 million would be valueless as the contract has been terminated.
Glass’s Net Assets
The leased property continues to be accounted for as property, plant and equipment and the carrying amount will not be
adjusted. However, the remaining useful life of the property will be revised to reflect the shorter term. Thus the property will
be depreciated at $2 million per annum over the next two years. The change to the depreciation period is applied prospectively
not retrospectively. The lease liability must be assessed under IAS39 in order to determine whether it constitutes a
de-recognition of a financial liability. As the change is a modification of the lease and not an extinguishment, the lease liability
would not be derecognised. The lease liability will be adjusted for the one off payment of $1 million and re-measured to the
present value of the revised future cash flows. That is $0·6 million/1·07 + $0·6 million/(1·07 × 1·07) i.e. $1·1 million. The
adjustment to the lease liability would normally be recognised in profit or loss but in this case it will affect the net capital
contributed by Glass.
The termination cost of the contract cannot be treated as an intangible asset. It is similar to redundancy costs paid to terminate
a contract of employment. It represents compensation for the loss of future income for the agency. Therefore it must be
removed from the balance sheet of York. The recognition criteria for an intangible asset require that there should be probable
future economic benefits flowing to York and the cost can be measured reliably. The latter criterion is met but the first criterion
is not. The cost of gaining future customers is not linked to this compensation.
IAS18 ‘Revenue’ contains a concept of a ‘multiple element’ arrangement. This is a contract which contains two or more
elements which are in substance separate and are separately identifiable. In other words, the two elements can operate
independently from each other. In this case, the contract with the overseas company has two distinct elements. There is a
contract not to supply gas to any other customer in the country and there is a contract to sell gas at fair value to the overseas
company. The contract has not been fulfilled as yet and therefore the payment of $1·5 million should not be taken to profit
or loss in its entirety at the first opportunity. The non supply of gas to customers in that country occurs over the four year
period of the contract and therefore the payment should be recognised over that period. Therefore the amount should be
shown as deferred income and not as a deduction from intangible assets. The revenue on the sale of gas will be recognised
as normal according to IAS18.
There may be an issue over the value of the net assets being contributed. The net assets contributed by Glass amount to
$21·9 million whereas those contributed by Gow only total $13·8 million after taking into account any adjustments required
by IFRS. The joint venturers have equal shareholding in York but no formal written agreements, thus problems may arise ifGlass feels that the contributions to the joint venture are unequal.

正确答案：

正确答案：D
20% x 120,000

正确答案：A
20% x (400,000 + 800,000)

正确答案：

 

When considering the shortfall
– The family’s expenditure is likely to increase as the children get older, particularly if there is a need for school fees.
– There will be a need for some cash immediately to pay for the cost of the funeral.
– It is assumed that the whole of Jane’s estate has been left to Charles such that there will be no inheritance tax on her
death.
– The shortfall may be reduced by:
(i) State benefits and tax credits.
(ii) Expenditure on non-essential items, e.g. holidays and entertainment included in the annual expenditure of
￡45,500.
(iii) The income generated by Charles if he were to return to work.
– The shortfall may be increased by additional child-care costs due to Charles being a single parent, particularly if he
returns to work full-time.
Further information required
– The level of state benefits and tax credits available to Charles.
– The current level of expenditure on non-essential items.
– The costs of child-care if Charles were to return to work.
– Details of any wills made by Charles or Jane.
– Whether Charles’ investment properties could be sold and the proceeds invested in assets with a higher annual return.
– Whether there is any value in Speak Write Ltd independent of Jane, such that the company could be sold after Jane’s
death.
Other related issues
– The couple should consider making provision for their retirement via pension contributions or some other form. of long
term investment plan.
– The couple should recognise that there would be significant financial problems if Jane were to become seriously ill. In
addition to the family’s income falling as set out above, its expenditure would probably increase.
Protection products
– Term life assurance
A qualifying life policy would pay out a tax-free lump sum on Jane’s death.
– Permanent health insurance
Would provide a regular income if Jane were unable to work due to illness.
– Critical illness insurance
Would provide a capital sum in the event of Jane being diagnosed with an insured illness.

正确答案：
(b) Financial statement risks
Assets
■ There is a very high risk that inventory could be materially overstated in the balance sheet (thereby overstating profit)
because:
? there is a high volume of metals (hence material);
? valuable metals are made more portable;
? subsidy gives an incentive to overstate purchases (and hence inventory);
? inventory may not exist due to lack of physical controls (e.g. aluminium can blow away);
? scrap metal in the stockyard may have zero net realisable value (e.g. iron is rusty and slow-moving);
? quantities per counts not attended by an auditor have increased by a third.
■ Inventory could be otherwise misstated (over or under) due to:
? the weighbridge being inaccurate;
? metal qualities being estimated;
? different metals being mixed up; and
? the lack of an independent expert to identify/measure/value metals.
■ Tangible non-current assets are understated as the parts of the furnaces that require replacement (the linings) are not
capitalised (and depreciated) as separate items but treated as repairs/maintenance/renewals and expensed.
■ Cash may be understated due to incomplete recording of sales.
■ Recorded cash will be overstated if it does not exist (e.g. if it has been stolen).
■ Trade receivables may be understated if cash receipts from credit customers have been misappropriated.
Liabilities
■ The provision for the replacement of the furnace linings is overstated by the amount provided in the current and previous
year (i.e. in its entirety).
Tutorial note: Last replacement was two years ago.
Income statement
■ Revenue will be understated in respect of unrecorded cash sales of salvaged metals and ‘clinker’.
■ Scrap metal purchases (for cash) are at risk of overstatement:
? to inflate the 15% subsidy;
? to conceal misappropriated cash.
■ The income subsidy will be overstated if quantities purchased are overstated and/or overvalued (on the quarterly returns)
to obtain the amount of the subsidy.
■ Cash receipts/payments that were recorded only in the cash book in November are at risk of being unrecorded (in the
absence of cash book postings for November), especially if they are of a ‘one-off’ nature.
Tutorial note: Cash purchases of scrap and sales of salvaged metal should be recorded elsewhere (i.e. in the manual
inventory records). However, a one-off expense (of a capital or revenue nature) could be omitted in the absence of
another record.
■ Expenditure is overstated in respect of the 25% provision for replacing the furnace linings. However, as depreciation
will be similarly understated (as the furnace linings have not been capitalised) there is no risk of material misstatement
to the income statement overall.
Disclosure risk
■ A going concern (‘failure’) risk may arise through the loss of:
? sales revenue (e.g. through misappropriation of salvaged metals and/or cash);
? the subsidy (e.g. if returns are prepared fraudulently);
? cash (e.g. if material amounts stolen).
Any significant doubts about going concern must be suitably disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.
Disclosure risk arises if the requirements of IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’ are not met.
■ Disclosure risk arises if contingent liabilities in connection with the dumping of ‘clinker’ (e.g. for fines and penalties) are
not adequately disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
Appropriate audit approach
Tutorial note: In explaining why AN audit approach is appropriate for Indigo it can be relevant to comment on the
unsuitability of other approaches.
■ A risk-based approach is suitable because:
? inherent risk is high at the entity and financial assertion levels;
? material errors are likely to arise in inventory where a high degree of subjectivity will be involved (regarding quality
of metals, quantities, net realisable value, etc);
? it directs the audit effort to inventory, purchases, income (sales and subsidy) and other risk areas (e.g. contingent
liabilities).
■ A systems-based/compliance approach is not suited to the risk areas identified because controls are lacking/ineffective
(e.g. over inventory and cash). Also, as the audit appointment was not more than three months ago and no interim
audit has been conducted (and the balance sheet date is only three weeks away) testing controls is likely to be less
efficient than a substantive approach.
■ A detailed substantive/balance sheet approach would be suitable to direct audit effort to the appropriate valuation of
assets (and liabilities) existing at balance sheet date. Principal audit work would include:
? attendance at a full physical inventory count at 31 December 2005;
? verifying cash at bank (through bank confirmation and reconciliation) and in hand (through physical count);
? confirming the accuracy of the quarterly returns to the local authority.
■ A cyclical approach/directional testing is unlikely to be suitable as cycles are incomplete. For example the purchases
cycle for metals is ‘purchase/cash’ rather than ‘purchase/payable/cash’ and there is no independent third party evidence
to compensate for that which would be available if there were trade payables (i.e. suppliers’ statements). Also the cycles
are inextricably inter-related to cash and inventory – amounts of which are subject to high inherent risk.
■ Analytical procedures may be of limited use for substantive purposes. Factors restricting the use of substantive analytical
procedures include:
? fluctuating margins (e.g. as many factors will influence the price at which scrap is purchased and subsequently
sold, when salvaged, sometime later);
? a lack of reliable/historic information on which to make comparisons.

正确答案：
(c) Principal audit work
(i) Development expenditure on the Fox model
■ Agree opening balance, $6·3 million, to prior year working papers.
■ Physically inspect assembly plant/factory where the Fox is being developed and any vehicles so far manufactured
(e.g. for testing).
■ Substantiate costs incurred during the year, for example:
– goods (e.g. components) and services (e.g. consultants) to purchase invoices;
– labour (e.g. design engineers/technicians, mechanics, test drivers) to the payroll analysis;
– overheads (e.g. depreciation of development buildings and equipment, power, consumables) to
management’s calculation of overhead absorption and underlying cost accounts.
■ Review of internal trials/test drive results (e.g. in reports to management and video recordings of events).
■ Reperform. management’s impairment test of development expenditure. In particular recalculate value in use.
Tutorial note: It is highly unlikely that a reasonable estimate of fair value less costs to sell could be made for so
unique an asset.
■ Substantiate the key assumptions made by management in calculating value in use. For example:
– the level of sales expected when the car is launched to advance orders (this may have fallen with the delay
in the launch);
– the discount rate used to Pavia’s cost of capital;
– projected growth in sales to actual sales growth seen last time a new model was launched.

正确答案：
(b) Matters to be considered
Tutorial note: Candidates at this level must appreciate that the matters to be considered when planning the nature and
scope of the examination are not the same matters to be considered when deciding whether or not to accept an
engagement. The scenario clearly indicates that the assignment is being undertaken by the current auditor rendering any
‘pre-engagement’/‘professional etiquette’ considerations irrelevant to answering this question.
This PFI has been prepared to show an external user, the bank, the financial consequences of Cusiter’s plans to help the bank
in making an investment decision. If Cusiter is successful in its loan application the PFI provides a management tool against
which the results of investing in the plant and equipment can be measured.
The PFI is unpublished rather than published. That is, it is prepared at the specific request of a third party, the bank. It will
not be published to users of financial information in general.
The auditor’s report on the PFI will provide only negative assurance as to whether the assumptions provide a reasonable basis
for the PFI and an opinion whether the PFI is:
■ properly prepared on the basis of the assumptions; and
■ presented in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework.
The nature of the engagement is an examination to obtain evidence concerning:
■ the reasonableness and consistency of assumptions made;
■ proper preparation (on the basis of stated assumptions); and
■ consistent presentation (with historical financial statements, using appropriate accounting principles).
Such an examination is likely to take the form. of inquiry, analytical procedures and corroboration.
The period of time covered by the prospective financial information is two years. The assumptions for 2008 are likely to be
more speculative than for 2007, particularly in relation to the impact on earnings, etc of the investment in new plant and
equipment.
The forecast for the year to 31 December 2007 includes an element of historical financial information (because only part of
this period is in the future) hence actual evidence should be available to verify the first three months of the forecast (possibly
more since another three-month period will expire at the end of the month).
Cusiter management’s previous experience in preparing PFI will be relevant. For example, in making accounting estimates
(e.g. for provisions, impairment losses, etc) or preparing cash flow forecasts (e.g. in support of the going concern assertion).
The basis of preparation of the forecast. For example, the extent to which it comprises:
■ proforma financial information (i.e. historical financial information adjusted for the effects of the planned loan and capital
expenditure transaction);
■ new information and assumptions about future performance (e.g. the operating capacity of the new equipment, sales
generated, etc).
The nature and scope of any standards/guidelines under which the PFI has been prepared is likely to assist the auditor in
discharging their responsibilities to report on it. Also, ISAE 3400 The Examination of Prospective Financial Information,
establishes standards and provides guidance on engagements to examine and report on PFI including examination
procedures.
The planned nature and scope of the examination is likely to take into account the time and fee budgets for the assignments
as adjusted for any ‘overlap’ with audit work. For example, the examination of the PFI is likely to draw on the auditor’s
knowledge of the business obtained in auditing the financial statements to 31 December 2006. Analytical procedures carried
out in respect of the PFI may provide evidence relevant to the 31 December 2007 audit.

正确答案：
(b) ISA 540 Audit of Accounting Estimates requires that auditors should obtain sufficient audit evidence as to whether an
accounting estimate, such as a warranty provision, is reasonable given the entity’s circumstances, and that disclosure is
appropriate. One, or a combination of the following approaches should be used:
Review and test the process used by management to develop the estimate
– Review contracts or orders for the terms of the warranty to gain an understanding of the obligation of Island Co
– Review correspondence with customers during the year to gain an understanding of claims already in progress at the
year end
– Perform. analytical procedures to compare the level of warranty provision year on year, and compare actual to budgeted
provisions. If possible disaggregate the data, for example, compare provision for specific types of machinery or customer
by customer
– Re-calculate the warranty provision
– Agree the percentage applied in the calculation to the stated accounting policy of Island Co
– Review board minutes for discussion of on-going warranty claims, and for approval of the amount provided
– Use management accounts to ascertain normal level of warranty rectification costs during the year
– Discuss with Kate Shannon the assumptions she used to determine the percentage used in her calculations
– Consider whether assumptions used are consistent with the auditors’ understanding of the business
– Compare prior year provision with actual expenditure on warranty claims in the accounting period
– Compare the current year provision with prior year and discuss any fluctuation with Kate Shannon.
Review subsequent events which confirm the estimate made
– Review any work carried out post year end on specific faults that have been provided for. Agree that all costs are included
in the year end provision.
– Agree cash expended on rectification work in the post balance sheet period to the cash book
– Agree cash expended on rectification work post year end to suppliers’ invoices, or to internal cost ledgers if work carried
out by employees of Island Co
– Read customer correspondence received post year end for any claims received since the year end.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Matters to consider
Materiality
The receivable represents only 0·2% (25,000/12 million x 100) of total assets so is immaterial in monetary terms.
However, the details of the transaction could make it material by nature.
The amount is outstanding from a company under the control of Pulp Co’s chairman. Readers of the financial statements
would be interested to know the details of this transaction, which currently is not disclosed. Elements of the transaction
could be subject to bias, specifically the repayment terms, which appear to be beyond normal commercial credit terms.
Paul Sheffield may have used his influence over the two companies to ‘engineer’ the transaction. Disclosure is necessary
due to the nature of the transaction, the monetary value is irrelevant.
A further matter to consider is whether this is a one-off transaction, or indicative of further transactions between the two
companies.
Relevant accounting standard
The definitions in IAS 24 must be carefully considered to establish whether this actually constitutes a related party
transaction. The standard specifically states that two entities are not necessarily related parties just because they have
a director or other member of key management in common. The audit senior states that Jarvis Co is controlled by Peter
Sheffield, who is also the chairman of Pulp Co. It seems that Peter Sheffield is in a position of control/significant influence
over the two companies (though this would have to be clarified through further audit procedures), and thus the two
companies are likely to be perceived as related.
IAS 24 requires full disclosure of the following in respect of related party transactions:
– the nature of the related party relationship,
– the amount of the transaction,
– the amount of any balances outstanding including terms and conditions, details of security offered, and the nature
of consideration to be provided in settlement,
– any allowances for receivables and associated expense.
There is currently a breach of IAS 24 as no disclosure has been made in the notes to the financial statements. If not
amended, the audit opinion on the financial statements should be qualified with an ‘except for’ disagreement. In
addition, if practicable, the auditor’s report should include the information that would have been included in the financial
statements had the requirements of IAS 24 been adhered to.
Valuation and classification of the receivable
A receivable should only be recognised if it will give rise to future economic benefit, i.e. a future cash inflow. It appears
that the receivable is long outstanding – if the amount is unlikely to be recovered then it should be written off as a bad
debt and the associated expense recognised. It is possible that assets and profits are overstated.
Although a representation has been received indicating that the amount will be paid to Pulp Co, the auditor should be
sceptical of this claim given that the same representation was given last year, and the amount was not subsequently
recovered. The $25,000 could be recoverable in the long term, in which case the receivable should be reclassified as
a non-current asset. The amount advanced to Jarvis Co could effectively be an investment rather than a short term
receivable. Correct classification on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) is crucial for the financial
statements to properly show the liquidity position of the company at the year end.
Tutorial note: Digressions into management imposing a limitation in scope by withholding evidence are irrelevant in this
case, as the scenario states that the only evidence that the auditors have asked for is a management representation.
There is no indication in the scenario that the auditors have asked for, and been refused any evidence.