1 Your client, Island Co, is a manufacturer of machinery used in the coal extraction industry. You are currently planningthe audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2007. The draft financial statements showrevenue of $125 million

题目

1 Your client, Island Co, is a manufacturer of machinery used in the coal extraction industry. You are currently planning

the audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2007. The draft financial statements show

revenue of $125 million (2006 – $103 million), profit before tax of $5·6 million (2006 – $5·1 million) and total

assets of $95 million (2006 – $90 million). Your firm was appointed as auditor to Island Co for the first time in June

2007.

Island Co designs, constructs and installs machinery for five key customers. Payment is due in three instalments: 50%

is due when the order is confirmed (stage one), 25% on delivery of the machinery (stage two), and 25% on successful

installation in the customer’s coal mine (stage three). Generally it takes six months from the order being finalised until

the final installation.

At 30 November, there is an amount outstanding of $2·85 million from Jacks Mine Co. The amount is a disputed

stage three payment. Jacks Mine Co is refusing to pay until the machinery, which was installed in August 2007, is

running at 100% efficiency.

One customer, Sawyer Co, communicated in November 2007, via its lawyers with Island Co, claiming damages for

injuries suffered by a drilling machine operator whose arm was severely injured when a machine malfunctioned. Kate

Shannon, the chief executive officer of Island Co, has told you that the claim is being ignored as it is generally known

that Sawyer Co has a poor health and safety record, and thus the accident was their fault. Two orders which were

placed by Sawyer Co in October 2007 have been cancelled.

Work in progress is valued at $8·5 million at 30 November 2007. A physical inventory count was held on

17 November 2007. The chief engineer estimated the stage of completion of each machine at that date. One of the

major components included in the coal extracting machinery is now being sourced from overseas. The new supplier,

Locke Co, is located in Spain and invoices Island Co in euros. There is a trade payable of $1·5 million owing to Locke

Co recorded within current liabilities.

All machines are supplied carrying a one year warranty. A warranty provision is recognised on the balance sheet at

$2·5 million (2006 – $2·4 million). Kate Shannon estimates the cost of repairing defective machinery reported by

customers, and this estimate forms the basis of the provision.

Kate Shannon owns 60% of the shares in Island Co. She also owns 55% of Pacific Co, which leases a head office to

Island Co. Kate is considering selling some of her shares in Island Co in late January 2008, and would like the audit

to be finished by that time.

Required:

(a) Using the information provided, identify and explain the principal audit risks, and any other matters to be

considered when planning the final audit for Island Co for the year ended 30 November 2007.

Note: your answer should be presented in the format of briefing notes to be used at a planning meeting.

Requirement (a) includes 2 professional marks. (13 marks)

如果没有搜索结果或未解决您的问题，请直接联系老师获取答案。

相似问题和答案

第1题：

(b) Describe with suitable calculations how the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Briars will be dealt with in

the group financial statements and how the loan to Briars should be treated in the financial statements of

Briars for the year ended 31 May 2006. (9 marks)

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:

第2题：

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$0·5 million). (8 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Albreda Co for the year ended

30 September 2005.

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

正确答案：

3 ALBREDA CO

(a) Cessation of ‘home delivery’ service
(i) Matters
■ $0·6 million represents 1·4% of reported revenue (prior year 1·9%) and is therefore material.
Tutorial note: However, it is clearly not of such significance that it should raise any doubts whatsoever regarding
the going concern assumption. (On the contrary, as revenue from this service has declined since last year.)
■ The home delivery service is not a component of Albreda and its cessation does not classify as a discontinued
operation (IFRS 5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’).
? It is not a cash-generating unit because home delivery revenues are not independent of other revenues
generated by the restaurant kitchens.
? 1·4% of revenue is not a ‘major line of business’.
? Home delivery does not cover a separate geographical area (but many areas around the numerous
restaurants).
■ The redundancy provision of $0·2 million represents 11·1% of profit before tax (10% before allowing for the
provision) and is therefore material. However, it represents only 0·6% of total assets and is therefore immaterial
to the balance sheet.
■ As the provision is a liability it should have been tested primarily for understatement (completeness).
■ The delivery vehicles should be classified as held for sale if their carrying amount will be recovered principally
through a sale transaction rather than through continuing use. For this to be the case the following IFRS 5 criteria
must be met:
? the vehicles must be available for immediate sale in their present condition; and
? their sale must be highly probable.
Tutorial note: Highly probable = management commitment to a plan + initiation of plan to locate buyer(s) +
active marketing + completion expected in a year.
■ However, even if the classification as held for sale is appropriate the measurement basis is incorrect.
■ Non-current assets classified as held for sale should be carried at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell.
■ It is incorrect that the vehicles are being measured at fair value less costs to sell which is $0·3 million in excess
of the carrying amount. This amounts to a revaluation. Wherever the credit entry is (equity or income statement)
it should be reversed. $0·3 million represents just less than 1% of assets (16·7% of profit if the credit is to the
income statement).
■ Comparison of fair value less costs to sell against carrying amount should have been made on an item by item
basis (and not on their totals).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Copy of board minute documenting management’s decision to cease home deliveries (and any press
releases/internal memoranda to staff).
■ An analysis of revenue (e.g. extracted from management accounts) showing the amount attributed to home delivery
sales.
■ Redundancy terms for drivers as set out in their contracts of employment.
■ A ‘proof in total’ for the reasonableness/completeness of the redundancy provision (e.g. number of drivers × sum
of years employed × payment per year of service).
■ A schedule of depreciated cost of delivery vehicles extracted from the non-current asset register.
■ Checking of fair values on a sample basis to second hand market prices (as published/advertised in used vehicle
guides).
■ After-date net sale proceeds from sale of vehicles and comparison of proceeds against estimated fair values.
■ Physical inspection of condition of unsold vehicles.
■ Separate disclosure of the held for sale assets on the face of the balance sheet or in the notes.
■ Assets classified as held for sale (and other disposals) shown in the reconciliation of carrying amount at the
beginning and end of the period.
■ Additional descriptions in the notes of:
? the non-current assets; and
? the facts and circumstances leading to the sale/disposal (i.e. cessation of home delivery service).

第3题：

(b) Ambush loaned $200,000 to Bromwich on 1 December 2003. The effective and stated interest rate for this

loan was 8 per cent. Interest is payable by Bromwich at the end of each year and the loan is repayable on

30 November 2007. At 30 November 2005, the directors of Ambush have heard that Bromwich is in financial

difficulties and is undergoing a financial reorganisation. The directors feel that it is likely that they will only

receive $100,000 on 30 November 2007 and no future interest payment. Interest for the year ended

30 November 2005 had been received. The financial year end of Ambush is 30 November 2005.

Required:

(i) Outline the requirements of IAS 39 as regards the impairment of financial assets. (6 marks)

正确答案：
(b) (i) IAS 39 requires an entity to assess at each balance sheet date whether there is any objective evidence that financial
assets are impaired and whether the impairment impacts on future cash flows. Objective evidence that financial assets
are impaired includes the significant financial difficulty of the issuer or obligor and whether it becomes probable that the
borrower will enter bankruptcy or other financial reorganisation.
For investments in equity instruments that are classified as available for sale, a significant and prolonged decline in the
fair value below its cost is also objective evidence of impairment.
If any objective evidence of impairment exists, the entity recognises any associated impairment loss in profit or loss.
Only losses that have been incurred from past events can be reported as impairment losses. Therefore, losses expected
from future events, no matter how likely, are not recognised. A loss is incurred only if both of the following two
conditions are met:
(i) there is objective evidence of impairment as a result of one or more events that occurred after the initial recognition
of the asset (a ‘loss event’), and
(ii) the loss event has an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial asset or group of financial assets
that can be reliably estimated
The impairment requirements apply to all types of financial assets. The only category of financial asset that is not subject
to testing for impairment is a financial asset held at fair value through profit or loss, since any decline in value for such
assets are recognised immediately in profit or loss.
For loans and receivables and held-to-maturity investments, impaired assets are measured at the present value of the
estimated future cash flows discounted using the original effective interest rate of the financial assets. Any difference
between the carrying amount and the new value of the impaired asset is an impairment loss.
For investments in unquoted equity instruments that cannot be reliably measured at fair value, impaired assets are
measured at the present value of the estimated future cash flows discounted using the current market rate of return for
a similar financial asset. Any difference between the previous carrying amount and the new measurement of theimpaired asset is recognised as an impairment loss in profit or loss.

第4题：

3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Keffler Co, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of

plastic products. The draft financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2006 show revenue of $47·4 million

(2005 – $43·9 million), profit before taxation of $2 million (2005 – $2·4 million) and total assets of $33·8 million

(2005 – $25·7 million).

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

(a) In April 2005, Keffler bought the right to use a landfill site for a period of 15 years for $1·1 million. Keffler

expects that the amount of waste that it will need to dump will increase annually and that the site will be

completely filled after just ten years. Keffler has charged the following amounts to the income statement for the

year to 31 March 2006:

– $20,000 licence amortisation calculated on a sum-of-digits basis to increase the charge over the useful life

of the site; and

– $100,000 annual provision for restoring the land in 15 years’ time. (9 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Keffler Co for the year ended

31 March 2006.

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

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).

第5题：

health and safety regulations. These amounts have not been separately disclosed but included in cost of sales.

(5 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Albreda Co for the year ended

30 September 2005.

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

正确答案：
(c) Fines and penalties
(i) Matters
■ $0·1 million represents 5·6% of profit before tax and is therefore material. However, profit has fallen, and
compared with prior year profit it is less than 5%. So ‘borderline’ material in quantitative terms.
■ Prior year amount was three times as much and represented 13·6% of profit before tax.
■ Even though the payments may be regarded as material ‘by nature’ separate disclosure may not be necessary if,
for example, there are no external shareholders.
■ Treatment (inclusion in cost of sales) should be consistent with prior year (‘The Framework’/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of
Financial Statements’).
■ The reason for the fall in expense. For example, whether due to an improvement in meeting health and safety
regulations and/or incomplete recording of liabilities (understatement).
■ The reason(s) for the breaches. For example, Albreda may have had difficulty implementing new guidelines in
response to stricter regulations.
■ Whether expenditure has been adjusted for in the income tax computation (as disallowed for tax purposes).
■ Management’s attitude to health and safety issues (e.g. if it regards breaches as an acceptable operational practice
or cheaper than compliance).
■ Any references to health and safety issues in other information in documents containing audited financial
statements that might conflict with Albreda incurring these costs.
■ Any cost savings resulting from breaches of health and safety regulations would result in Albreda possessing
proceeds of its own crime which may be a money laundering offence.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A schedule of amounts paid totalling $0·1 million with larger amounts being agreed to the cash book/bank
statements.
■ Review/comparison of current year schedule against prior year for any apparent omissions.
■ Review of after-date cash book payments and correspondence with relevant health and safety regulators (e.g. local
authorities) for liabilities incurred before 30 September 2005.
■ Notes in the prior year financial statements confirming consistency, or otherwise, of the lack of separate disclosure.
■ A ‘signed off’ review of ‘other information’ (i.e. directors’ report, chairman’s statement, etc).
■ Written management representation that there are no fines/penalties other than those which have been reflected in
the financial statements.

第6题：

4 (a) Router, a public limited company operates in the entertainment industry. It recently agreed with a television

company to make a film which will be broadcast on the television company’s network. The fee agreed for the

film was $5 million with a further $100,000 to be paid every time the film is shown on the television company’s

channels. It is hoped that it will be shown on four occasions. The film was completed at a cost of $4 million and

delivered to the television company on 1 April 2007. The television company paid the fee of $5 million on

30 April 2007 but indicated that the film needed substantial editing before they were prepared to broadcast it,

the costs of which would be deducted from any future payments to Router. The directors of Router wish to

recognise the anticipated future income of $400,000 in the financial statements for the year ended 31 May

2007. (5 marks)

Required:

Discuss how the above items should be dealt with in the group financial statements of Router for the year ended

31 May 2007.

正确答案：
(a) Under IAS18 ‘Revenue’, revenue on a service contract is recognised when the outcome of the transaction can be measured
reliably. For revenue arising from the rendering of services, provided that all of the following criteria are met, revenue should
be recognised by reference to the stage of completion of the transaction at the balance sheet date (the percentage-ofcompletion
method) (IAS18 para 20):
(a) the amount of revenue can be measured reliably;
(b) it is probable that the economic benefits will flow to the seller;
(c) the stage of completion at the balance sheet date can be measured reliably; and
(d) the costs incurred, or to be incurred, in respect of the transaction can be measured reliably.
When the above criteria are not met, revenue arising from the rendering of services should be recognised only to the extent
of the expenses recognised that are recoverable. Because the only revenue which can be measured reliably is the fee for
making the film ($5 million), this should therefore be recognised as revenue in the year to 31 May 2007 and matched against
the cost of the film of $4 million. Only when the television company shows the film should any further amounts of $100,000
be recognised as there is an outstanding ‘performance’ condition in the form. of the editing that needs to take place before the
television company will broadcast the film. The costs of the film should not be carried forward and matched against
anticipated future income unless they can be deemed to be an intangible asset under IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’. Additionally,
when assessing revenue to be recognised in future years, the costs of the editing and Router’s liability for these costs should
be assessed.

第7题：

(b) Historically, all owned premises have been measured at cost depreciated over 10 to 50 years. The management

board has decided to revalue these premises for the year ended 30 September 2005. At the balance sheet date

two properties had been revalued by a total of $1·7 million. Another 15 properties have since been revalued by

$5·4 million and there remain a further three properties which are expected to be revalued during 2006. A

revaluation surplus of $7·1 million has been credited to equity. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Albreda Co for the year ended

30 September 2005.

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

正确答案：
(b) Revaluation of owned premises
(i) Matters
■ The revaluations are clearly material as $1·7 million, $5·4 million and $7·1 million represent 5·5% , 17·6% and
23·1% of total assets, respectively.
■ The change in accounting policy, from a cost model to a revaluation model, should be accounted for in accordance
with IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’ (i.e. as a revaluation).
Tutorial note: IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’ does not apply to the initial
application of a policy to revalue assets in accordance with IAS 16.
■ The basis on which the valuations have been carried out, for example, market-based fair value (IAS 16).
■ Independence, qualifications and expertise of valuer(s).
■ IAS 16 does not permit the selective revaluation of assets thus the whole class of premises should have been
revalued.
■ The valuations of properties after the year end are adjusting events (i.e. providing additional evidence of conditions
existing at the year end) per IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’.
Tutorial note: It is ‘now’ still less than three months after the year end so these valuations can reasonably be
expected to reflect year-end values.
■ If $5·4 million is a net amount of surpluses and deficits it should be grossed up so that the credit to equity reflects
the sum of the surpluses with any deficits being expensed through profit and loss (IAS 36 ‘Impairment of Assets’).
■ The revaluation exercise is incomplete. If the revaluations on the remaining three properties are expected to be
material and cannot be reasonably estimated for inclusion in the financial statements for the year ended
30 September 2005 perhaps the change in policy should be deferred for a year.
■ Depreciation for the year should have been calculated on cost as usual to establish carrying amount before
revaluation.
■ Any premises held under finance leases should be similarly revalued.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A schedule of depreciated cost of owned premises extracted from the non-current asset register.
■ Calculation of difference between valuation and depreciated cost by property. Separate summation of surpluses
and deficits.
■ Copy of valuation certificate for each property.
■ Physical inspection of properties with largest surpluses (including the two valued before the year end) to confirm
condition.
■ Extracts from local property guides/magazines indicating a range of values of similarly styled/sized properties.
■ Separate presentation of the revaluation surpluses (gross) in:
– the statement of changes in equity; and
– reconciliation of carrying amount at the beginning and end of the period.
■ IAS 16 disclosures in the notes to the financial statements including:
– the effective date of revaluation;
– whether an independent valuer was involved;
– the methods and significant assumptions applied in estimating fair values; and
– the carrying amount that would have been recognised under the cost model.

第8题：

(ii) Explain the accounting treatment under IAS39 of the loan to Bromwich in the financial statements of

Ambush for the year ended 30 November 2005. (4 marks)

正确答案：
(ii) There is objective evidence of impairment because of the financial difficulties and reorganisation of Bromwich. The
impairment loss on the loan will be calculated by discounting the estimated future cash flows. The future cash flows
will be $100,000 on 30 November 2007. This will be discounted at an effective interest rate of 8% to give a present
value of $85,733. The loan will, therefore, be impaired by ($200,000 – $85,733) i.e. $114,267.
(Note: IAS 39 requires accrual of interest on impaired loans at the original effective interest rate. In the year to
30 November 2006 interest of 8% of $85,733 i.e. $6,859 would be accrued.)

第9题：

3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Volcan, a long-established limited liability company. Volcan operates

a national supermarket chain of 23 stores, five of which are in the capital city, Urvina. All the stores are managed in

the same way with purchases being made through Volcan’s central buying department and product pricing, marketing,

advertising and human resources policies being decided centrally. The draft financial statements for the year ended

31 March 2005 show revenue of $303 million (2004 – $282 million), profit before taxation of $9·5 million (2004

– $7·3 million) and total assets of $178 million (2004 – $173 million).

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

(a) On 1 May 2005, Volcan announced its intention to downsize one of the stores in Urvina from a supermarket to

a ‘City Metro’ in response to a significant decline in the demand for supermarket-style. shopping in the capital.

The store will be closed throughout June, re-opening on 1 July 2005. Goodwill of $5·5 million was recognised

three years ago when this store, together with two others, was bought from a national competitor. It is Volcan’s

policy to write off goodwill over five years. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Volcan for the year ended

31 March 2005.

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

正确答案：
3 VOLCAN
(a) Store impairment
(i) Matters
■ Materiality
? The cost of goodwill represents 3·1% of total assets and is therefore material.
? However, after three years the carrying amount of goodwill ($2·2m) represents only 1·2% of total assets –
and is therefore immaterial in the context of the balance sheet.
? The annual amortisation charge ($1·1m) represents 11·6% profit before tax (PBT) and is therefore also
material (to the income statement).
? The impact of writing off the whole of the carrying amount would be material to PBT (23%).
Tutorial note: The temporary closure of the supermarket does not constitute a discontinued operation under IFRS 5
‘Non-Current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’.
■ Under IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’ Volcan should no longer be writing goodwill off over five years but
subjecting it to an annual impairment test.
■ The announcement is after the balance sheet date and is therefore a non-adjusting event (IAS 10 ‘Events After the
Balance Sheet Date’) insofar as no provision for restructuring (for example) can be made.
■ However, the event provides evidence of a possible impairment of the cash-generating unit which is this store and,
in particular, the value of goodwill assigned to it.
■ If the carrying amount of goodwill ($2·2m) can be allocated on a reasonable and consistent basis to this and the
other two stores (purchased at the same time) Volcan’s management should have applied an impairment test to
the goodwill of the downsized store (this is likely to show impairment).
■ If more than 22% of goodwill is attributable to the City Metro store – then its write-off would be material to PBT
(22% × $2·2m ÷ $9·5m = 5%).
■ If the carrying amount of goodwill cannot be so allocated; the impairment test should be applied to the
cash-generating unit that is the three stores (this may not necessarily show impairment).
■ Management should have considered whether the other four stores in Urvina (and elsewhere) are similarly
impaired.
■ Going concern is unlikely to be an issue unless all the supermarkets are located in cities facing a downward trend
in demand.
Tutorial note: Marks will be awarded for stating the rules for recognition of an impairment loss for a cash-generating
unit. However, as it is expected that the majority of candidates will not deal with this matter, the rules of IAS 36 are
not reproduced here.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Board minutes approving the store’s ‘facelift’ and documenting the need to address the fall in demand for it as a
supermarket.
■ Recomputation of the carrying amount of goodwill (2/5 × $5·5m = $2·2m).
■ A schedule identifying all the assets that relate to the store under review and the carrying amounts thereof agreed
to the underlying accounting records (e.g. non-current asset register).
■ Recalculation of value in use and/or fair value less costs to sell of the cash-generating unit (i.e. the store that is to
become the City Metro, or the three stores bought together) as at 31 March 2005.
Tutorial note: If just one of these amounts exceeds carrying amount there will be no impairment loss. Also, as
there is a plan NOT to sell the store it is most likely that value in use should be used.
■ Agreement of cash flow projections (e.g. to approved budgets/forecast revenues and costs for a maximum of five
years, unless a longer period can be justified).
■ Written management representation relating to the assumptions used in the preparation of financial budgets.
■ Agreement that the pre-tax discount rate used reflects current market assessments of the time value of money (and
the risks specific to the store) and is reasonable. For example, by comparison with Volcan’s weighted average cost
of capital.
■ Inspection of the store (if this month it should be closed for refurbishment).
■ Revenue budgets and cash flow projections for:
– the two stores purchased at the same time;
– the other stores in Urvina; and
– the stores elsewhere.
Also actual after-date sales by store compared with budget.

第10题：

(b) A sale of industrial equipment to Deakin Co in May 2005 resulted in a loss on disposal of $0·3 million that has

been separately disclosed on the face of the income statement. The equipment cost $1·2 million when it was

purchased in April 1996 and was being depreciated on a straight-line basis over 20 years. (6 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Keffler Co for the year ended

31 March 2006.

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

正确答案：
(b) Sale of industrial equipment
(i) Matters
■ The industrial equipment was in use for nine years (from April 1996) and would have had a carrying value of
$660,000 at 31 March 2005 (11/20 × $1·2m – assuming nil residual value and a full year’s depreciation charge
in the year of acquisition and none in the year of disposal). Disposal proceeds were therefore only $360,000.
■ The $0·3m loss represents 15% of PBT (for the year to 31 March 2006) and is therefore material. The equipment
was material to the balance sheet at 31 March 2005 representing 2·6% of total assets ($0·66/$25·7 × 100).
■ Separate disclosure, of a material loss on disposal, on the face of the income statement is in accordance with
IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’. However, in accordance with IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’,
it should not be captioned in any way that might suggest that it is not part of normal operating activities (i.e. not
‘extraordinary’, ‘exceptional’, etc).
Tutorial note: However, note that if there is a prior period error to be accounted for (see later), there would be
no impact on the current period income statement requiring consideration of any disclosure.
■ The reason for the sale. For example, whether the equipment was:
– surplus to operating requirements (i.e. not being replaced); or
– being replaced with newer equipment (thereby contributing to the $8·1m increase (33·8 – 25·7) in total
assets).
■ The reason for the loss on sale. For example, whether:
– the sale was at an under-value (e.g. to a related party);
– the equipment had a bad maintenance history (or was otherwise impaired);
– the useful life of the equipment is less than 20 years;
– there is any deferred consideration not yet recorded;
– any non-cash disposal proceeds have been overlooked (e.g. if another asset was acquired in a part-exchange).
■ If the useful life was less than 20 years, tangible non-current assets may be materially overstated in respect of other
items of equipment that are still in use and being depreciated on the same basis.
■ If the sale was to a related party then additional disclosure should be required in a note to the financial statements
for the year to 31 March 2006 (IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures’).
Tutorial note: Since there are no specific pointers to a related party transaction (RPT), this point is not expanded
on.
■ Whether the sale was identified in the prior year audit’s post balance sheet event review. If so:
– the disclosure made in the prior year’s financial statements (IAS 10 ‘Events After the Balance Sheet Date’);
– whether an impairment loss was recognised at 31 March 2005.
■ If not, and the equipment was impaired at 31 March 2005, a prior period error should be accounted for (IAS 8
‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’). An impairment loss of $0·3m would have
been material to prior year profit (12·5%).
Tutorial note: Unless this was a RPT or the impairment arose after 31 March 2005 a prior period adjustment
should be made.
■ Failure to account for a prior period error (if any) would result in modification of the audit opinion ‘except for’ noncompliance
with IAS 8 (in the current year) and IAS 36 (in the prior period).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Carrying amount ($0·66m as above) agreed to the non-current asset register balances at 31 March 2005 and
recalculation of the loss on disposal.
■ Cost and accumulated depreciation removed from the asset register in the year to 31 March 2006.
■ Receipt of proceeds per cash book agreed to bank statement.
■ Sales invoice transferring title to Deakin.
■ A review of maintenance expenses and records (e.g. to confirm reason for loss on sale).
■ Post balance sheet event review on prior year audit working papers file.
■ Management representation confirming that Deakin is not a related party (provided that there is no evidence to
suggest otherwise).

1 Your client, Island Co, is a manufacturer of machinery used in the coal extraction industry. You are currently planningthe audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2007. The draft financial statements showrevenue of $125 million

题目

相似问题和答案

更多相关问题

相关内容