5 An enterprise has made a material change to an accounting policy in preparing its current financial statements.Which of the following disclosures are required by IAS 8 Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimatesand errors in these financial sta

正确答案：

(a) (i) IAS12 ‘Income Taxes’ adopts a balance sheet approach to accounting for deferred taxation. The IAS adopts a full
provision approach to accounting for deferred taxation. It is assumed that the recovery of all assets and the settlement
of all liabilities have tax consequences and that these consequences can be estimated reliably and are unavoidable.
IFRS recognition criteria are generally different from those embodied in tax law, and thus ‘temporary’ differences will
arise which represent the difference between the carrying amount of an asset and liability and its basis for taxation
purposes (tax base). The principle is that a company will settle its liabilities and recover its assets over time and at that
point the tax consequences will crystallise.

Thus a change in an accounting standard will often affect the carrying value of an asset or liability which in turn will
affect the amount of the temporary difference between the carrying value and the tax base. This in turn will affect the
amount of the deferred taxation provision which is the tax rate multiplied by the amount of the temporary differences(assuming a net liability for deferred tax.)

 

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.)

正确答案：

【中文翻译】注册会计师约翰负责审计A公司20×8年12月31日的财务报表。
以下是未经审计财务报表的部分信息：
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（单位：千元）

项目	20×8	20×7
营业收入	64 000	48 000
营业成本	54 000	42 000
净利润	30	-20
	20×8年12月31日	20×7年12月31日
存货	16 000	12 000
流动资产	60 000	50 000
总资产	100 000	90 000
流动负债	20 000	18 000
总负债	30 000	25 000

在审计过程中，约翰发现以下事项：
（1）20×8年12月31日，A公司将未到期金额为人民币6 000 000元的商业承兑票据（附追索权）贴现，银行收取了人民币180 000元的贴现利息。A公司在20×8年12月31日做会计分录：
借：银行存款5 820 000
　　财务费用　180 000
　　贷：应收票据6 000 000
（2） 20×8年6月，A公司为B公司在C银行的贷款提供了担保。20×8年12月，由于B公司未能及时偿还贷款，A公司被银C行起诉，要求偿还贷款3 000 000元。20×8年12月31日官司尚未判决，根据管理层对担保损失的合理性估计，A公司做出以下会计分录：
借：营业外支出　　3 000 000
　　贷：预计负债　3 000 000
20×9年1月10日，A公司收到法院判决：A公司应赔偿C银行人民币 2 500 000元。A公司支付了这笔款项，并于20×9年1月末将做出如下会计分录：
借：预计负债 　　3 000 000　
　　贷：银行存款　　2 500 000
　　　　营业外收入　　　500 000

要求：
（1）在营业收入和净利润两者之中，选择一个用于计算A公司20×8年财务报表层次的计划重要性水平，两者中哪一个更合适一些？并说明理由。
（2）根据以上未经审计的财务报表信息，运用分析程序分析重大错报风险，请计算以下比率：
（a）20×8年存货周转率
（b）20×8年销售毛利率
（c）20×8年总资产净利率
（d）20×8年12月31日的流动比率
（3）根据上述事项，注册会计师约翰应提出哪些审计调整建议，并列示调整分录。（调整分录不考虑所得税的影响）

【答案】
（1）应选择营业收入作为计算重要性水平的基础。
因为营业收入具有稳定性，净利润有亏转盈，不具有稳定性。

（2）存货周转率＝54 000/[（16000+12000）/2]＝3.86
销售毛利率＝（64000-54000）/64000×100％＝15.63％
总资产净利率＝30/[（100000+90000）/2]＝0.03％
流动比率＝60000/20000＝3
（3）
a.应建议做如下审计调整分录：
借：应收票据　6 000 000
　　贷：短期借款　5 820 000
　　　　财务费用　　180 000

b.应建议做如下审计调整分录：
借：预计负债　3 000 000
　　贷：营业外支出　500 000
　　　　其他应付款　2 500 000

正确答案：
(a) Reliability and Measurement
Fair value can be defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability. The fair value can
be thought of as an ‘exit price’. A fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability
occurs in the principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market
for the asset or liability which is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the
price that maximises the amount that would be received or minimises the amount that would be paid. IAS39 ‘Financial
Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’ requires an entity to use the most advantageous active market in measuring the
fair value of a financial asset or liability when multiple markets exist whereas IAS41 ‘Agriculture’ requires an entity to use the
most relevant market. Thus there can be different approaches for estimating exit prices. Additionally valuation techniques and
current replacement cost could be used.
A hierarchy of fair value measurements would have to be developed in order to convey information about the nature of the
information used in creating the fair values. For example quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets would provide better
quality information than quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets which would provide better quality
information than prices which reflect the reporting entity’s own thinking about the assumptions that market participants would
use in pricing the asset or liability. Enron made extensive use of what it called ‘mark-to-market’ accounting which was based
on valuation techniques and estimates. IFRSs currently do not have a single hierarchy that applies to all fair value measures.
Instead individual standards indicate preferences for certain inputs and measures of fair value over others, but this guidance
is not consistent among all IFRSs.
Some companies, in order to effectively manage their businesses, have already developed models for determining fair values.
Businesses manage their operations by managing risks. A risk management process often requires measurement of fair values
of contracts, financial instruments, and risk positions.
If markets were liquid and transparent for all assets and liabilities, fair value accounting clearly would give reliable information
which is useful in the decision making process. However, because many assets and liabilities do not have an active market,
the inputs and methods for estimating their fair value are more subjective and, therefore, the valuations are less reliable. Fair
value estimates can vary greatly, depending on the valuation inputs and methodology used. Where management uses
significant judgment in selecting market inputs when market prices are not available, reliability will continue to be an issue.
Management can use significant judgment in the valuation process. Management bias, whether intentional or unintentional,
may result in inappropriate fair value measurements and consequently misstatements of earnings and equity capital. Without
reliable fair value estimates, the potential for misstatements in financial statements prepared using fair value measurements
will be even greater.
Consideration must be given to revenue recognition issues in a fair value system. It must be ensured that unearned revenue
is not recognised early as it recently was by certain high-tech companies.
As the variety and complexity of financial instruments increases, so does the need for independent verification of fair value
estimates. However, verification of valuations that are not based on observable market prices is very challenging. Users of
financial statements will need to place greater emphasis on understanding how assets and liabilities are measured and how
reliable these valuations are when making decisions based on them.
Disclosure
Fair values reflect point estimates and do not result in transparent financial statements. Additional disclosures are necessary
to bring meaning to these fair value estimates. These disclosures might include key drivers affecting valuations, fair-valuerange
estimates, and confidence levels. Another important disclosure consideration relates to changes in fair value amounts.
For example, changes in fair values on securities can arise from movements in interest rates, foreign-currency rates, and credit
quality, as well as purchases and sales from the portfolio. For users to understand fair value estimates, they must be given
adequate disclosures about what factors caused the changes in fair value. It could be argued that the costs involved in
determining fair values may exceed the benefits derived therefrom. When considering how fair value information should be
presented in the financial statements, it is important to consider what type of financial information investors want. There are
indications that some investors desire both fair value information and historical cost information. One of the issues affecting
the credibility of fair value disclosures currently is that a number of companies include ‘health warnings’ with their disclosures
indicating that the information is not used by management. This language may contribute to users believing that the fair value
disclosures lack credibility.

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：

5 Report to the Directors of Ambush, a public limited company
(a) The following report sets out the principal aspects of IAS 39 in the designated areas.
(i) Classification of financial instruments and their measurement
Financial assets and liabilities are initially measured at fair value which will normally be the fair value of the
consideration given or received. Transaction costs are included in the initial carrying value of the instrument unless it
is carried at ‘fair value through profit or loss’ when these costs are recognised in the income statement.
Financial assets should be classified into four categories:
(i) financial assets at fair value through profit or loss
(ii) loans and receivables
(iii) held-to-maturity investments (HTM)
(iv) available-for-sale financial assets (AFS).
The first category above has two sub categories which are ‘held for trading’ and those designated to this category at
inception/initial recognition. This latter designation is irrevocable.
Financial liabilities have two categories: those at fair value through profit or loss, and ‘other’ liabilities. As with financial
assets those liabilities designated as at fair value through profit or loss have two sub categories which are the same as
those for financial assets.
Reclassifications between categories are uncommon and restricted under IAS 39 and are prohibited into and out of the
fair value through profit or loss category. Reclassifications between AFS and HTM are possible but it is not possible from
loans and receivables to AFS. The held to maturity category is limited in its application as if the company sells or
reclassifies more than an immaterial amount of the portfolio, it is barred from using the category for at least two years.
Also all remaining HTM investments would be reclassified to AFS.
Subsequent measurement of financial assets and liabilities depends on the classification. The following tablesummarises the position:

Amortised cost is the cost of an asset or liability adjusted to achieve a constant effective interest rate over the life of the
asset or liability.
It is not possible to compute amortised cost for instruments that do not have fixed or determinable payments, such as
for equity instruments, and such instruments therefore cannot be classified into these categories.
A company must apply the effective interest rate method in the measurement of amortised cost. The effective interest
rate method determines how much interest income or interest expense should be reported in profit and loss.
For financial assets at fair value through profit or loss and financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss, all
changes in fair value are recognised in profit or loss when they occur. This includes unrealised holding gains and losses.
For available-for-sale financial assets, unrealised holding gains and losses are deferred in reserves until they are realised
or impairment occurs. Only interest income and dividend income, impairment losses, and certain foreign currency gains
and losses are recognised in profit or loss.
Investments in unquoted equity instruments that cannot be reliably measured at fair value are subsequently measureat cost. Unrealised holding gains/losses are not normally recognised in profit/loss.

正确答案：
(a) The main reasons why the three accounting standards boards have decided to come together in a joint project regarding a
single performance statement are as follows:
(i) there are many different formats and classifications used for financial statements and different time periods used for
comparative data in different countries.
(ii) there are no common definitions as regards the key elements of financial performance and no agreement on the standard
definitions of the key ratios which would then determine the nature of the information that financial statements should
provide. There has been an increase in the reporting of alternative and often inconsistent financial performance
measures that has led to confusion and often has misled users.
(iii) there has been an increase in the use of pro-forma reporting which would tend to suggest that the existing totals and
sub totals in financial statements are not being used or relied upon as much as in the past.
(iv) there are benefits in separating transactions and events that are recorded at historical cost from those recorded at fair
value. Also, the differentiation between trading and holding gains gives useful information. This ‘mixed attribute’ model
is causing concern over the effects on reported performance.
(v) there is often insufficient disaggregation of data which prevents effective financial analysis of performance.
(vi) there has been an inconsistency in the use of ‘recycling ‘in financial statements of different jurisdictions which has led
to issues of reporting gains and losses twice.
(vii) the reporting of gains and losses on financial instruments required consideration. The gains and losses may currently be
reported under several headings dependent upon the nature of the instrument.
(viii) there are many relevant items excluded from the performance statements and inappropriate items included. For example
the reporting of foreign currency gains/losses on the retranslation of the net investment in foreign operations is normally
recognised in equity in many countries and dividends proposed shown on the face of the income statement when it does
not meet the definition of a liability and is a transaction with the owners of the business and not third parties.
(ix) Information is inconsistently classified within and outside totals and subtotals.

正确答案:正确

正确答案：

正确答案：
(a) The IASB wish their standards to be ‘principles-based’ and in order for this to be the case, the standards must be based on
fundamental concepts. These concepts need to constitute a framework which is sound, comprehensive and internally
consistent. Without agreement on a framework, standard setting is based upon the personal conceptual frameworks of the
individual standard setters which may change as the membership of the body changes and results in standards that are not
consistent with each other. Such a framework is designed not only to assist standard setters, but also preparers of financial
statements, auditors and users.
A common goal of the IASB is to converge their standards with national standard setters. The IASB will encounter difficulties
converging their standards if decisions are based on different frameworks. The IASB has been pursuing a number of projects
that are aimed at achieving short term convergence on certain issues with national standard setters as well as major projects
with them. Convergence will be difficult if there is no consistency in the underlying framework being used.
Frameworks differ in their authoritative status. The IASB’s Framework requires management to expressly consider the
Framework if no standard or interpretation specifically applies or deals with a similar and related issue. However, certain
frameworks have a lower standing. For example, entities are not required to consider the concepts embodied in certain
national frameworks in preparing financial statements. Thus the development of an agreed framework would eliminate
differences in the authoritative standing of conceptual frameworks and lead to greater consistency in financial statements
internationally.
The existing concepts within most frameworks are quite similar. However, these concepts need revising to reflect changes in
markets, business practices and the economic environment since the concepts were developed. The existing frameworks need
developing to reflect these changes and to fill gaps in the frameworks. For example, the IASB’s Framework does not contain
a definition of the reporting entity. An agreed international framework could deal with this problem, especially if priority was
given to the issues likely to give short-term standard setting benefits.
Many standard setting bodies attempted initially to resolve accounting and reporting problems by developing accounting
standards without an accepted theoretical frame. of reference. The result has been inconsistency in the development of
standards both nationally and internationally. The frameworks were developed when several of their current standards were
in existence. In the absence of an agreed conceptual framework the same theoretical issues are revisited on several occasions
by standard setters. The result is inconsistencies and incompatible concepts. Examples of this are substance over form. and
matching versus prudence. Some standard setters such as the IASB permit two methods of accounting for the same set of
circumstances. An example is the accounting for joint ventures where the equity method and proportionate consolidation are
allowed.
Additionally there have been differences in the way that standard setters have practically used the principles in the framework.
Some national standard setters have produced a large number of highly detailed accounting rules with less emphasis on
general principles. A robust framework might reduce the need for detailed rules although some companies operate in a
different legal and statutory context than other entities. It is important that a framework must result in standards that account
appropriately for actual business practice.
An agreed framework will not solve all accounting issues, nor will it obviate the need for judgement to be exercised in resolving
accounting issues. It can provide a framework within which those judgements can be made.
A framework provides standard setters with both a foundation for setting standards, and concepts to use as tools for resolving
accounting and reporting issues. A framework provides a basic reasoning on which to consider the merits of alternatives. It
does not provide all the answers, but narrows the range of alternatives to be considered by eliminating some that are
inconsistent with it. It, thereby, contributes to greater efficiency in the standard setting process by avoiding the necessity of
having to redebate fundamental issues and facilitates any debate about specific technical issues. A framework should also
reduce political pressures in making accounting judgements. The use of a framework reduces the influence of personal biases
in accounting decisions.
However, concepts statements are by their nature very general and theoretical in their wording, which leads to alternative
conclusions being drawn. Whilst individual standards should be consistent with the Framework, in the absence of a specific
standard, it does not follow that concepts will provide practical solutions. IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’ sets out a hierarchy of authoritative guidance that should be considered in the absence of a standard.
In this case, management can use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy, albeit by considering the
IASB framework, but can also use accounting standards issued by other bodies. Thus an international framework may nottotally provide solutions to practical accounting problems.