1、2016 年 6 月 ACCA 考试 P7 高级审计与认证业务真题及答案解析(总分：120.00，做题时间：195 分钟)案例分析题(总题数：5，分数：120.00)Section A BOTH questions are compulsory and MUST be attempted1、You are an audit manager in Montreal and (7 marks)(ii) Explain the audit evidence you would expect to find in your review of the audit working papers. (5
2、marks)（分数：25.00）_Section B TWO questions ONLY to be attempted3、(a) According to ISA 240 The Auditors Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements: When identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud, the auditor shall, based on a presumption that
3、there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition, evaluate which types of revenue, revenue transactions or assertions give rise to such risks.Required: Discuss why the auditor should presume that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition and why ISA 240 requires specific auditor responses in re
4、lation to the risks identified. (7 marks)(b) You are the manager responsible for the audit of York Co, a chain of health and leisure clubs owned and managed by entrepreneur Phil Smith. The audit for the year ended 30 November 2015 is nearing completion and the draft financial statements recognise to
5、tal assets of $27 million and profit before tax of $22 million. The audit senior has left the following file notes for your consideration during your review of the audit working papers:(i) Cash transfersDuring a review of the cash book, a receipt of $350,000 was identified which was accompanied by t
6、he description BD. Bank statements showed that the following day a nearly identical amount was transferred into a bank account held in a foreign country. When I asked the financial controller about this, she requested that I speak to Mr Smith, as he has sole responsibility for cash management. Accor
7、ding to Mr Smith, an old friend of his, Brian Davies, has loaned the money to the company to fund further expansion and the money has been invested until it is needed. Documentary evidence concerning the transaction has been requested from Mr Smith but has not yet been received. (7 marks)(ii) Legal
8、disputeAt the year end York Co reversed a provision relating to an ongoing legal dispute with an ex-employee who was claiming $150,000 for unfair dismissal. This amount was provided in full in the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 2014 but has now been reversed because Mr Smith bel
9、ieves it is now likely that York Co will successfully defend the legal case. Mr Smith has not been available to discuss this matter and no additional documentary evidence has been made available since the end of the previous years audit. The audit report was unmodified in the previous year. (6 marks
10、)Required: Evaluate the implications for the completion of the audit, recommending any further actions which should be taken by your audit firm.Note: The split of the mark allocation is shown against each of the issues above.（分数：20.00）_4、You are a manager at Chennai and（分数：14）_(b) Assuming that mana
11、gement does not adjust any of the misstatements, discuss the effect on the audit opinion and auditors report.（分数：6）_2016 年 6 月 ACCA 考试 P7 高级审计与认证业务真题答案解析(总分：120.00，做题时间：195 分钟)案例分析题(总题数：5，分数：120.00)Section A BOTH questions are compulsory and MUST be attempted1、You are an audit manager in Montreal An
12、ticipated results of the Group, such as budgets or forecasts;Expectations of the auditor; orComparable information from competitors.Analytical procedures performed at the planning stage help the auditor to identify and respond appropriately to risk, and to assist the auditor in obtaining an understa
13、nding of the audited companies within the Group.ISA 315 Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement through Understanding the Entity and its Environment requires the auditor to perform analytical procedures as part of risk assessment procedures at the planning stage of the audit to
14、provide a basis for the identification and assessment of risks of material misstatement at the financial statement and assertion levels.An example of how analytical procedures assist the auditor is that performing analytical procedures may alert the auditor to a transaction or event of which they we
15、re previously unaware, therefore prompting the auditor to investigate the matter, obtain understanding of the matter and plan appropriate audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Therefore analytical procedures are an essential part of developing the audit strategy and audit
16、 plan.Analytical procedures may also help the auditor to identify the existence of unusual transactions or events, such as significant one-off events. Unusual amounts, ratios, and trends might also indicate matters which indicate risk. Unusual or unexpected relationships which are identified by thes
17、e procedures may assist the auditor in identifying risks of material misstatement, especially risks of material misstatement due to fraud.Without performing analytical procedures, the auditor would be unable to identify risks of material misstatement and respond accordingly. This would increase dete
18、ction risk, making it more likely that an inappropriate audit opinion could be issued.(b) Audit risk evaluation including analytical proceduresSelected analytical procedures and associated audit risk evaluationAnalytical procedures reveals that the Groups revenue has increased by 19%, but that opera
19、ting expenses have disproportionately increased by 256%, resulting in the fall in operating margin from 121% in 2015 to 72% in 2016. This is a significant change, and while the higher costs incurred could be due to valid business reasons, the trend could indicate operating costs are overstated or sa
20、les are understated. There is a risk that some of the costs involved in modernising the Groups warehousing facilities have been incorrectly treated as revenue expenditure when this should have been capitalised. The trend in operating margin is consistent with the change in return on capital employed
21、 which has also fallen. The treatment of the costs involved in the modernisation of the Groups warehouse facilities will need detailed investigation to ensure that costs have been classified appropriately.However, given the finance directors comment that operations have not changed significantly dur
22、ing the year, the increase in revenue of 19% seems surprising, given that this is a significant increase, and there is therefore also a risk that revenue could be overstated. Detailed testing of the Groups revenue recognition policies will be required to verify that revenue is appropriately stated a
23、nd recorded in the correct period.The Groups interest cover has declined sharply, and finance costs have increased by 33%. This could indicate that finance costs are overstated, however, given that the Group has taken out additional debenture finance during the year, and also now has an overdraft, a
24、n increase in finance costs is to be expected and is more likely to simply reflect the significant drop which the Group has experienced in its operating profit levels. The debenture may contain a covenant in relation to interest cover, and if so, there is a risk that the covenant may have been breac
25、hed. While this is a business risk rather than an audit risk, the matter may require disclosure in the financial statements, leading to a risk of material misstatement if necessary disclosures are not made.The comparison of effective tax rates shows that the effective tax rate is much lower in 2016.
26、 This could be due to the utilisation of Toronto Cos tax losses which seems to have taken place due to the reduction in the Groups deferred tax asset this year. However, this is a complex issue and there is a risk that the tax expense is understated in comparison with the previous year. Given the on
27、going tax investigation regarding potential underpayment of tax, this is a significant audit risk. Depending on the possible outcome of the tax investigation, there may be a need to provide for additional tax liabilities and any penalties which may be imposed by the tax authorities. Details of the i
28、nvestigation and its findings so far will need to be considered and the probability of the tax authorities finding against the Group should be considered as part of our detailed audit testing to verify that liabilities are complete or that disclosures for contingent liabilities are complete.The Grou
29、p appears to be experiencing cash flow problems in the current year with its cash reserves being eradicated during the year and the Group now relying on an overdraft. Its current ratio has fallen from 09 to 08, indicating that liquidity is a problem. The receivables days figure has increased from 52
30、 days in 2015 to 60 days in 2016. This could be due to poor credit control, and if this is a significant risk to the Group the issues involved may need to be disclosed according to IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosure, hence there is a risk of inadequate disclosure. The increase in receivables d
31、ays may also indicate an overstatement of receivables balances.The provisions balance has halved in value from $12 million in 2015 to $6 million in 2016. This could indicate that the provisions balance is understated and operating profit overstated, if there is not a valid reason for the reduction i
32、n value of the liability. Possibly if the onerous lease contracts have now expired, then that could justify the change in value, but this will need to be confirmed. In addition, provisions may be required in respect of dilapidation costs for leased properties, and there is a risk of understated liab
33、ilities if any such provisions have not been recognised.The results of the analytical review should be reconsidered once any necessary adjustments are made to the financial statements in light of potential misstatements identified below.Modernisation of warehousing facilitiesOverall, property, plant
34、 and equipment has increased by $43 million or 23% which is a significant movement, representing 117% of total assets. A total amount of $25 million has been spent on modernising the warehousing facilities which is material, representing 68% of total assets. The modernisation programme explains part
35、 of the increase in property, plant and equipment but given that depreciation would have been charged, the reasons for the large increase must be carefully considered. As part of our audit work we will need to ensure that we understand how all of this movement has occurred as there are several risks
36、 of material misstatement associated with the expenditure.First, there is a risk that the amounts capitalised into non-current assets are not correct in that capital and revenue expenditure may not have been correctly identified and accounted for separately. According to IAS 16 Property, Plant and E
37、quipment, modernisation costs which give rise to enhanced future economic benefit should be capitalised where the costs are directly attributable, whereas costs which do not create future economic benefit should be expensed. It would seem that costs such as replacing electrical systems should be cap
38、italised, but other incidental costs which may have been incurred such as repairing items within the warehouses should be expensed.In addition, there is a risk that the various components of each warehouse have not been treated as separate components and depreciated over a specific useful life. IAS
39、16 requires that each part of an item of property, plant and equipment with a cost which is significant in relation to the total cost of the item must be depreciated separately. Items such as computer systems are likely to be significant components of the warehouses and as such should be accounted f
40、or as discrete assets in their own right. Failure to correctly determine the significant components of the capital expenditure could lead to misstatement of the assets carrying values and depreciation expenses.There is also an issue with the finance costs in respect of the $5 million debenture taken
41、 out to finance the modernisation programme. If the criteria of IAS 23 Borrowing Costs are met, in particular if the modernisation of the warehouses meets the definition of a qualifying asset, then borrowing costs should be capitalised during the period of modernisation. A qualifying asset is an ass
42、et which takes a substantial period of time to get ready for its intended use or sale, so depending on the length of time that the modernisation programme has taken, it may meet the definition so borrowing costs would need to be capitalised. There is therefore a risk that borrowing costs have not be
43、en capitalised if the qualifying asset definition has been met, and equally a risk that borrowing costs may have been capitalised incorrectly if the definition has not been met. The borrowing costs, however, may not be material in isolation.If any accounting errors have occurred in the amounts capit
44、alised into property, plant and equipment, then non-current assets may be over or understated, as would be the depreciation charge calculated on the carrying value of those assets.Disposal of shares in Calgary CoA comparison of the statement of profit or loss for both years shows that the profit mad
45、e on the disposal of shares in Calgary Co has been separately disclosed as part of profit in the year ending 31 July 2016. The profit recognised is material at 303% of profit before tax. Several errors seem to have been made in accounting for the disposal and in respect of its disclosure.First, it i
46、s not correct that this profit on disposal is recognised in the statement of profit or loss. According to IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, changes in a parents ownership interest in a subsidiary which does not result in the parent losing control of the subsidiary are treated as equity tran
47、sactions. Any difference between the amount by which the non-controlling interests are adjusted and the fair value of the consideration paid or received is recognised directly in equity and attributed to the owners of the parent; this appears to have been incorrectly accounted for as there should no
48、t be a profit on disposal within the statement of profit or loss. Therefore profit before tax is overstated by $10 million. The tax charge may be overstated if it has been calculated based on profit including the gain made on the share disposal.Second, while the non-controlling interest has been recognised in equity, the Groups profit for the year has not been attributed and disclosed between the Group and the non-controlling interest. There is also a risk that the disclosure requirements of IFRS 12 Di
