今日热词：
您当前所在位置：
日《超级运动会》
发布时间: 09:10:23&&
flash地址：
html代码：
onchange="clip.setText(this.value)" />
播放次数：996
日《超级运动会》
你好,欢迎回来名师幽默的声音，考试重点和难点讲解，每天限额200张，抢完为止！改变，从这一刻开始!
你现在的位置：> >
ACCA2012年6月份考试真题***(P2)
会计城 | 日
来源 : 互联网
(b)(i)ThebasicrulesforthederecognitionmodelinHKFRS9FinancialInstrumentsistodeterminewhethertheassetunderconsiderationf
　　(b) (i) The basic rules for the derecognition model in HKFRS 9 Financial Instruments is to determine whether the asset under
　　consideration for derecognition is:
　　(i) an asset in its entirety, or
　　(ii) specifically identified cash flows from an asset (or a group of similar financial assets), or
　　(iii) a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of the cash flows from an asset (or a group of similar financial assets), or
　　(iv) a fully proportionate (pro rata) share of specifically identified cash flows from a financial asset (or a group of similar
　　financial assets).
　　Once the asset under consideration for de-recognition has been determined, an assessment is made as to whether the
　　asset should be derecognised. Derecognition is required if either:
　　(i) the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial asset have expired, or
　　(ii) financial asset has been transferred, and if so, whether the transfer of that asset is subsequently eligible for
　　derecognition.
　　An asset is transferred if either the entity has transferred the contractual rights to receive the cash flows, or the entity
　　has retained the contractual rights to receive the cash flows from the asset, but has assumed a contractual obligation to
　　pass those cash flows on under an arrangement that meets the following three conditions:
　　(i) the entity has no obligation to pay amounts to the eventual recipient unless it collects equivalent amounts on the
　　(ii) the entity is prohibited from selling or pledging the original asset (other than as security to the eventual recipient);
　　(iii) the entity has an obligation to remit those cash flows without material delay.
　　Once an entity has determined that the asset has been transferred, it then determines whether or not it has transferred
　　substantially all of the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset. If substantially all the risks and rewards have been
　　transferred, the asset is derecognised. If substantially all the risks and rewards have been retained, derecognition of the
　　asset is precluded. If the entity has neither retained nor transferred substantially all of the risks and rewards of the asset,
　　then the entity must assess whether it has relinquished control of the asset or not. If the entity does not control the asset
　　then derecogn however, if the entity has retained control of the asset, then the entity continues to
　　14recognise the asset to the extent to which it has a continuing involvement in the asset. Robby has transferred its rights
　　to receive cash flows and its maximum exposure is to repay $3&6 million. This is unlikely, but Robby has guaranteed
　　that it will compensate the bank for all credit losses. Additionally, Robby receives the benefit of amounts received above
　　$3&6 million and therefore retains both the credit risk and late payment risk. Substantially, all the risks and rewards
　　remain with Robby and therefore the receivables should still be recognised.
　　(ii) Manipulation of financial statements often does not involve breaking rules, but the purpose of financial statements is to
　　present a fair representation of the company&s or group&s position, and if the financial statements are misrepresented on
　　purpose then this could be deemed unethical. The financial statements in this case are being manipulated to hide the
　　fact that the group has liquidity problems. The Robby Group has severe problems with a current ratio of 0&44
　　($36m/$81&2m) and a gearing ratio of 0&83 ($53 + 20 + 21 + factored receivables 3&6 + land option 16 =
　　113&6/equity interest including NCI $136&09m). The sale and repurchase of the land would make little difference to the
　　overall position of the company, but would maybe stave off proceedings by the bank if the overdraft were eliminated.
　　Robby has considerable PPE, which may be undervalued if the sale of the land is indicative of the value of all of the
　　Accountants have the responsibility to issue financial statements that do not mislead users as they assume that such
　　professionals are acting in an ethical capacity, thus giving the financial statements credibility. Accountants should seek
　　to promote or preserve the public interest. If the idea of a profession is to have any significance, then it must have the
　　trust of users. Accountants should present financial statements that meet the qualitative characteristics set out in the
　　Framework. Faithful representation and verifiability are two such concepts and it is critical that these concepts are
　　applied in the preparation and disclosure of financial information.
　　2 (a) A lease is classified as a finance lease if it transfers substantially the entire risks and rewards incident to ownership. All other
　　leases are classified as operating leases. Classification is made at the inception of the lease. Whether a lease is a finance
　　lease or an operating lease depends on the substance of the transaction rather than the form. Situations that would normally
　　lead to a lease being classified as a finance lease include the following:
　　& the lease transfers ownership of the asset to the lessee by the e
　　& the lessee has the option to purchase the asset at a price which is expected to be sufficiently lower than fair value at
　　the date the option becomes exercisable that, at the inception of the lease, it is reasonably certain that the option will
　　& the lease term is for the major part of the economic life of the asset, even if titl
　　& at the inception of the lease, the present value of the minimum lease payments amounts to at least substantially all of
　　the fair value
　　& the lease assets are of a specialised nature such that only the lessee can use them without major modifications being
　　In this case the lease back of the building is for the major part of the building&s economic life and the present value of the
　　minimum lease payments amounts to all of the fair value of the leased asset. Therefore the lease should be recorded as a
　　finance lease.
　　The building is derecognised at its carrying amount and then reinstated at its fair value with any disposal gain, in this instance
　　$1&5 million ($5m & $3&5m) being deferred over the new lease term. The building is depreciated over the shorter of the lease
　　term and useful economic life, so 20 years. Finance lease accounting results in a liability being created, finance charge
　　accruing at the implicit rate within the lease, in this case 7%, and the payment reducing the lease liability in arriving at the
　　year-end balance. The associated double entry for the lease is as follows:
　　(d) HKAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets describes contingent liabilities in two ways. Firstly, as
　　reliably possible obligations whose existence will be confirmed only on the occurrence or non-occurrence of uncertain future
　　events outside the entity&s control, or secondly, as present obligations that are not recognised because: (a) it is not probable
　　that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to s or (b) the amount cannot be measured reliably.
　　In Chrissy&s financial statements contingent liabilities are not recognised but are disclosed and described in the notes to the
　　financial statements, including an estimate of their potential financial effect and uncertainties relating to the amount or timing
　　of any outflow, unless the possibility of settlement is remote.
　　However, in a business combination, a contingent liability is recognised if it meets the definition of a liability and if it can be
　　measured. The first type of contingent liability above under HKAS 37 is not recognised in a business combination. However,
　　the second type of contingency is recognised whether or not it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits takes place
　　but only if it can be measured reliably. This means William would recognise a liability of $4 million in the consolidated
　　accounts. Contingent liabilities are an exception to the recognition principle because of the reliable measurement criteria.
　　3 (a) The fair value model in HKAS 40 Investment Property defines fair value as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged
　　between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm&s length transaction. Fair value should reflect market conditions at the date
　　of the statement of financial position. The standard gives a considerable amount of guidance on de in
　　particular, that the best evidence of fair value is given by current prices on an active market for similar property in the same
　　location and condition and subject to similar lease and other constraints. Therefore investment properties are not being valued
　　in accordance with the best possible method. This means that goodwill recognised on the acquisition of an investment
　　property through a business combination of real estate investment companies is different as compared to what it should be
　　under HKFRS 3 Business Combination valuation principles. In reality, the fair value of both the property and the deferred tax
　　liability are reflected in the purchase price of the business combination. The difference between this purchase price and the
　　net assets recognised according to HKFRS 3, upon which deferred tax is based, is recognised as goodwill in the consolidated
　　statement of financial position.
　　16Ethan&s methods for determining whether goodwill is impaired, and the amount it is impaired by, are not in accordance with
　　HKAS 36 Impairment of Assets. The standard requires assets (or cash generating units (CGU) if not possible to conduct the
　　review on an asset by asset basis) to be stated at the lower of carrying amount and recoverable amount. The recoverable
　　amount is the higher of fair value less costs to sell and value in use. Fair value less costs to sell is a post-tax valuation taking
　　account of deferred taxes. According to HKAS 36, the deferred tax liability should be included in calculating the carrying
　　amount of the CGU, since the transaction price also includes the effect of the deferred tax and the purchaser assumes the tax
　　risk. Therefore, the impairment testing of goodwill should be based on recoverable amount, rather than on the relationship
　　between the goodwill and the deferred tax liability as assessed by Ethan.
　　Ethan should disclose both the methodology by which the recoverable amount of the CGU, and therefore goodwill, is
　　determined and the assumptions underlying that methodology under the requirements of HKAS 36. The standard requires
　　Ethan to state the basis on which recoverable amount has been determined and to disclose the key assumptions on which it
　　is based.
　　In accordance with HKAS 36, where impairment testing takes place, goodwill is allocated to each individual real estate
　　investment identified as a cash-generating unit (CGU). Periodically, but at least annually, the recoverable amount of the CGU
　　is compared with its carrying amount. If this comparison results in the carrying amount being greater than the recoverable
　　amount, the impairment is first allocated to the goodwill. Any further difference is subsequently allocated against the value of
　　the investment property.
　　The recognition of deferred tax assets on losses carried forward is not in accordance with HKAS 12 Income Taxes. Ethan is
　　not able to provide convincing evidence to ensure that Ethan would be able to generate sufficient taxable profits against which
　　the unused tax losses could be offset. Historically, Ethan&s activities have generated either significant losses or very minimal
　　 they have never produced large pre-tax profits. Therefore, in accordance with HKAS 12, there is a need to produce
　　convincing evidence from Ethan that it would be able to generate future taxable profits equivalent to the value of the deferred
　　tax asset recognised.
　　Any decision would be based mainly on the following:
　　& history of Ethan&s pre-
　　& previously published budget expectations and realised
　　& Ethan&s expectations fo and
　　& announcements of new contracts.
　　There have been substantial negative variances arising between Ethan&s budgeted and realised results. Also, Ethan has
　　announced that it would not achieve the expected profit, but rather would record a substantial loss. Additionally, there is no
　　indication that the losses were not of a type that could clearly be attributed to external events that might not be expected to
　　recur. Thus the deferred tax asset should not be recognised or at the very least reduced.
　　(b) Normally debt issued to finance Ethan&s investment properties would be accounted for using amortised cost model. However,
　　Ethan may apply the fair value option in HKFRS 9 Finanical Instruments as such application would eliminate or significantly
　　reduce a measurement or recognition inconsistency between the debt liabilities and the investment properties to which they
　　are related. The provision requires there to be a measurement or recognition inconsistency that would otherwise arise from
　　measuring assets or liabilities or recognising the gains and losses on them on different bases. The option is not restricted to
　　financial assets and financial liabilities. The HKICPA concludes that accounting mismatches may occur in a wide variety of
　　circumstances and that financial reporting is best served by providing entities with the opportunity of eliminating such
　　mismatches where that results in more relevant information. Ethan supported the application of the fair value option with the
　　argument that there is a specific financial correlation between the factors that form the basis of the measurement of the fair
　　value of the investment properties and the related debt. Particular importance was placed on the role played by interest rates,
　　although it is acknowledged that the value of investment properties will also depend, to some extent, on rent, location and
　　maintenance and other factors. For some investment properties, however, the value of the properties will be dependent on
　　the movement in interest rates.
　　Under HKFRS 9, entities with financial liabilities designated as FVTPL recognise changes in the fair value due to changes in
　　the liability&s credit risk directly in other comprehensive income (OCI). There is no subsequent recycling of the amounts in
　　OCI to profit or loss, but accumulated gains or losses may be transferred within equity. The movement in fair value due to
　　other factors would be recognised within profit or loss. However, if presenting the change in fair value attributable to the credit
　　risk of the liability in OCI would create or enlarge an accounting mismatch in profit or loss, all fair value movements are
　　recognised in profit or loss. An entity is required to determine whether an accounting mismatch is created when the financial
　　liability is first recognised, and this determination is not reassessed. The mismatch must arise due to an economic relationship
　　between the financial liability and the associated asset that results in the liability&s credit risk being offset by a change in the
　　fair value of the asset. Financial liabilities that are required to be measured at FVTPL (as distinct from those that the entity
　　has designated at FVTPL), including financial guarantees and loan commitments measured at FVTPL, have all fair value
　　movement recognised in profit or loss. HKFRS 9 retains the flexibility that existed in HKFRS 7 Financial Instruments:
　　Disclosures to determine the amount of fair value change that relates to changes in the credit risk of the liability.
　　(c) Ethan&s classification of the B shares as equity instruments does not comply with HKAS 32 Financial Instruments:
　　Presentation. HKAS 32 paragraph 11, defines a financial liability to include, amongst others, any liability that includes a
　　17contractual obligation to deliver cash or financial assets to another entity. The criteria for classification of a financial instrument
　　as equity rather than liability are provided in HKAS 32 paragraph 16. This states that the instrument is an equity instrument
　　rather than a financial liability if, and only if, the instrument does not include a contractual obligation either to deliver cash
　　or another financial asset to the entity or to exchange financial assets or liabilities with another entity under conditions that
　　are potentially unfavourable to Ethan. HKAS 32 paragraph AG29 explains that when classifying a financial instrument in
　　consolidated financial statements, an entity should consider all the terms and conditions agreed between members of a group
　　and holders of the instrument, in determining whether the group as a whole has an obligation to deliver cash or another
　　financial instrument in respect of the instrument or to settle it in a manner that results in classification as a liability. Therefore,
　　since the operating subsidiary is obliged to pay an annual cumulative dividend on the B shares and does not have discretion
　　over the distribution of such dividend, the shares held by Ethan&s external shareholders should be classified as a financial
　　liability in Ethan&s consolidated financial statements and not non-controlling interest. The shares being held by Ethan will be
　　eliminated on consolidation as intercompany.
　　4 (a) (i) The existing guidance requires a provision to be recognised when: (a) it is probable that
　　probable that an outflow of resources will be required to se and (c) the obligation can be measured
　　reliably. The amount recognised as a provision should be the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the
　　present obligation at the balance sheet date, that is, the amount that an entity would rationally pay to settle the obligation
　　at the balance sheet date or to transfer it to a third party. This guidance, when applied consistently, provides useful,
　　predictive information about non-financial liabilities and the expected future cash flows, and is consistent with the
　　recognition criteria in the Framework. Standard setters have initiated a project to replace HKAS 37 for three main
　　reasons:
　　1. To address inconsistencies with other HKFRSs. HKAS 37 requires an entity to record an obligation as a liability
　　only if it is probable (i.e. more than 50% likely) that the obligation will result in an outflow of cash or other
　　resources from the entity. Other standards, such as HKFRS 3 Business Combinations and HKFRS 9 Financial
　　Instruments, do not apply this &probability of outflows& criterion to liabilities.
　　2. To achieve global convergence of accounting standards. The IASB is seeking to eliminate differences between IFRSs
　　and US generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP). At present, IFRSs and US GAAP differ in how they
　　treat the costs of restructuring a business.
　　3. To improve measurement of liabilities in HKAS 37. The requirements for measuring liabilities are unclear. As a
　　result, entities use different measures, making it difficult for analysts and investors to compare their financial
　　statements. Two aspects are particularly unclear. HKAS 37 requires entities to measure liabilities at the &best
　　estimate& of the expenditure required to settle the obligation. In practice, there are different interpretations of what
　　&best estimate& means: the most likely outcome, the weighted average of all possible outcomes or even the
　　minimum or maximum amount in the range of possible outcomes. It does not specify the costs that entities should
　　include in the measurement of a liability. In practice, entities include different costs. Some entities include only
　　incremental costs while others include all direct costs, plus indirect costs and overheads, or use the prices they
　　would pay contractors to fulfil the obligation on their behalf.
　　(ii) The IASB has decided that the new IFRS will not include the &probability of outflows& criterion. Instead, an entity should
　　account for uncertainty about the amount and timing of outflows by using a measurement that reflects their expected
　　value, i.e. the probability-weighted average of the outflows for the range of possible outcomes. Removal of this criterion
　　focuses attention on the definition of a liability in the Framework, which is a present obligation of an entity arising from
　　past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the entity of resources embodying economic
　　benefits. Furthermore, the new IFRS will require an entity to record a liability for each individual cost of a restructuring
　　only when the entity incurs that particular cost.
　　The exposure draft proposes that the measurement should be the amount that the entity would rationally pay at the
　　measurement date to be relieved of the liability. Normally, this amount would be an estimate of the present value of the
　　resources required to fulfil the liability. It could also be the amount that the entity would pay to cancel or fulfil the
　　obligation, whichever is the lowest. The estimate would take into account the expected outflows of resources, the time
　　value of money and the risk that the actual outflows might ultimately differ from the expected outflows.
　　If the liability is to pay cash to a counterparty (for example to settle a legal dispute), the outflows would be the expected
　　cash payments plus any associated costs, such as legal fees. If the liability is to undertake a service, for example to
　　decommission plant at a future date, the outflows would be the amounts that the entity estimates it would pay a
　　contractor at the future date to undertake the service on its behalf. Obligations involving services are to be measured by
　　reference to the price that a contractor would charge to undertake the service, irrespective of whether the entity is
　　carrying out the work internally or externally.
　　(b) Under HKAS 37, a provision of $105 million would be recognised since this is the estimate of the present obligation. There
　　will be no profit or loss impact other than the adjustment of the present value of the obligation to reflect the time value of
　　money by unwinding the discount.
　　18Under the proposed approach there are a number of different outcomes:
　　& with no risk and probability adjustment, the initial liability would be recognised at $129 million which is the present
　　value of the resources required to fulfil the obligation based upon third-party prices. This means that in 10 years the
　　provision would have unwound to $180 million, the entity will spend $150 million in decommission costs and a profit
　　of $30 million would be recognised. If there were no market for the dismantling of the platform, then Royan would
　　recognise a liability by estimating the price that it would charge another party to carry out the service.
　　& With risk and probability being taken into account, then the expected value would be (40% x $129m + 60% x $140m),
　　i.e. $135&6m plus the risk adjustment of $5 million, which totals $140&6 million.
　　& $105 million being the present value of the future cashflows discounted.
　　The ED suggests within paragraph 36B that the entity should take the lower of:
　　(a) the present value of the resources required to fulfil the obligation, i.e. $105
　　(b) the amount that the entity would have to pay to cancel the obligation, for which information i and
　　(c) the amount that the entity would have to pay to transfer the obligation to a third party, i.e. $140&6 million incorporating
　　the administrative costs.
　　Therefore $105 million should be provided.
　　The ED makes specific reference to provisions relating to services such as decommissioning where it suggests that the amount
　　to transfer to a third party would be the required liability, so $140&6 million would be provided.
[关注会计城官方微信，获更多新鲜、专业、实用资讯]
你可能对以下内容感兴趣：