(iii) cheese. (4 marks)
第1题:
(iii) job enrichment. (5 marks)
第2题:
4 (a) Explain the meaning of the term ‘working capital cycle’ for a trading company. (4 marks)
第3题:
(iii) A statement on the importance of confidentiality in the financing of the early stage working capital needs
and an explanation of how this conflicts with the duty of transparency in matters of corporate
governance. (6 marks)
Professional marks for layout, logical flow and persuasiveness of the statement. (4 marks)
第4题:
(iii) whether you agree or not with the statement of the production director. (3 marks)
第5题:
(iii) assesses TSC in terms of financial performance, competitiveness, service quality, resource utilisation,
flexibility and innovation and discusses the interrelationships between these terms, incorporating
examples from within TSC; and (10 marks)
第6题:
(iii) Identify and discuss an alternative strategy that may assist in improving the performance of CTC with
effect from 1 May 2009 (where only the products in (a) and (b) above are available for manufacture).
(4 marks)
第7题:
(iii) State the value added tax (VAT) and stamp duty (SD) issues arising as a result of inserting Bold plc as
a holding company and identify any planning actions that can be taken to defer or minimise these tax
costs. (4 marks)
You should assume that the corporation tax rates for the financial year 2005 and the income tax rates
and allowances for the tax year 2005/06 apply throughout this question.
第8题:
(iii) Explain the potential corporation tax (CT) implications of Tay Limited transferring work to Trent Limited,
and suggest how these can be minimised or eliminated. (3 marks)
第9题:
(c) Illustrate how:
(i) inquiry; and (4 marks)
第10题:
(iii) Can audit teams cross sell services to their clients? (4 marks)
Required:
For EACH of the three FAQs, explain the threats to objectivity that may arise and the safeguards that should
be available to manage them to an acceptable level.
NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three questions.
第11题:
(ii) Deema Co. (4 marks)
第12题:
(a) List and explain FOUR methods of selecting a sample of items to test from a population in accordance with ISA 530 (Redrafted) Audit Sampling and Other Means of Testing. (4 marks)
(b) List and explain FOUR assertions from ISA 500 Audit Evidence that relate to the recording of classes of
transactions. (4 marks)
(c) In terms of audit reports, explain the term ‘modified’. (2 marks)
第13题:
(iii) How items not dealt with by an IFRS for SMEs should be treated. (5 marks)
第14题:
(c) Mr Cobar, the chief executive of SHC, has decided to draft two alternative statements to explain both possible
outcomes of the secrecy/licensing decision to shareholders. Once the board has decided which one to pursue,
the relevant draft will be included in a voluntary section of the next corporate annual report.
Required:
(i) Draft a statement in the event that the board chooses the secrecy option. It should make a convincing
business case and put forward ethical arguments for the secrecy option. The ethical arguments should
be made from the stockholder (or pristine capitalist) perspective. (8 marks)
(ii) Draft a statement in the event that the board chooses the licensing option. It should make a convincing
business case and put forward ethical arguments for the licensing option. The ethical arguments should
be made from the wider stakeholder perspective. (8 marks)
(iii) Professional marks for the persuasiveness and logical flow of arguments: two marks per statement.
(4 marks)
(c) (i) For the secrecy option
Important developments at SHC
This is an exciting time for the management and shareholders of Swan Hill Company. The research and development
staff at SHC have made a groundbreaking discovery (called the ‘sink method’) that will enable your company to produce
its major product at lower cost, in higher volumes and at a much higher quality than our competitors will be able to
using, as they do, the existing production technology. The sink process also produces at a lower rate of environmental
emissions which, as I’m sure shareholders will agree, is a very welcome development.
When considering the options following the discovery, your board decided that we should press ahead with the
investment needed to transform. the production facilities without offering the use of the technology to competitors under
a licensing arrangement. This means that once the new sink production comes on stream, SHC shareholders can, your
board believes, look forward to a significant strengthening of our competitive position.
The business case for this option is overwhelming. By pushing ahead with the investment needed to implement the sink
method, the possibility exists to gain a substantial competitive advantage over all of SHC’s competitors. It will place SHC
in a near monopolist position in the short term and in a dominant position long term. This will, in turn, give the company
pricing power in the industry and the likelihood of superior profits for many years to come. We would expect SHC to
experience substantial ‘overnight’ growth and the returns from this will reward shareholders’ loyalty and significantly
increase the value of the company. Existing shareholders can reasonably expect a significant increase in the value of
their holdings over the very short term and also over the longer term.
Ethical implications of the secrecy option
In addition to the overwhelming business case, however, there is a strong ethical case for the secrecy option. SHC
recognises that it is the moral purpose of SHC to make profits in order to reward those who have risked their own money
to support it over many years. Whilst some companies pursue costly programmes intended to serve multiple stakeholder
interests, SHC recognises that it is required to comply with the demands of its legal owners, its shareholders, and not
to dilute those demands with other concerns that will reduce shareholder returns. This is an important part of the agency
relationship: the SHC board will always serve the best economic interests of its shareholders: its legal owners. The SHC
board believes that any action taken that renders shareholder returns suboptimal is a threat to shareholder value and an
abuse of the agency position. Your board will always seek to maximise shareholder wealth; hence our decision to pursue
the secrecy option in this case. The secrecy option offers the possibility of optimal shareholder value and because
shareholders invest in SHC to maximise returns, that is the only ethical action for the board to pursue. Happily, this
option will also protect the employees’ welfare in SHC’s hometown of Swan Hill and demonstrate its commitment to the
locality. This, in turn, will help to manage two of the key value-adding resources in the company, its employees and its
reputation. This will help in local recruitment and staff retention in future years.
(ii) For the licensing option
Important developments at SHC
Your board was recently faced with a very difficult business and ethical decision. After the discovery by SHC scientists
of the groundbreaking sink production method, we had a choice of keeping the new production technology secret or
sharing the breakthrough under a licensing arrangement with our competitors. After a lengthy discussion, your board
decided that we should pursue the licensing option and I would like to explain our reasons for this on both business and
ethical grounds.
In terms of the business case for licensing, I would like shareholders to understand that although the secrecy option may
have offered SHC the possibility of an unassailable competitive advantage, in reality, it would have incurred a number
of risks. Because of the speed with which we would have needed to have acted, it would have necessitated a large
increase in our borrowing, bringing about a substantial change in our financial structure. This would, in turn, increase
liquidity pressures and make us more vulnerable to rising interest rates. A second risk with the secrecy option would
involve the security of the sink technology ‘secret’. If the sink process was leaked or discovered by competitors and
subsequently copied, our lack of a legally binding patent would mean we would have no legal way to stop them
proceeding with their own version of the sink process.
As well as avoiding the risks, however, the licensing option offers a number of specific business advantages. The royalties
from the licences granted to competitors are expected to be very large indeed. These will be used over the coming years
to extend our existing competitive advantage in the future. Finally, the ‘improvement sharing’ clause in the licensing
contract will ensure that the sink process will be improved and perfected with several manufacturers using the
technology at the same time. SHC’s sink production may, in consequence, improve at a faster rate than would have
been the case were we to have pursued the secrecy option.
Ethical implications of the licensing option
In addition to the business case, there is also a powerful ethical case for the decision we have taken. As a good,
responsible corporate citizen, Swan Hill Company acknowledges its many stakeholders and recognises the impacts that
a business decision has on others. Your board recognises that in addition to external stakeholders having influence over
our operations, our decisions can also affect others. In this case, we have carefully considered the likelihood that keeping
the new technology a secret from our competitors would radically reshape the industry. The superior environmental
performance of the sink process over existing methods will also mean that when fully adopted, the environmental
emissions of the entire industry will be reduced. SHC is very proud of this contribution to this reduction in overall
environmental impact.
There seems little doubt that the secrecy option would have had far-reaching and unfortunate effects upon our industry
and our competitors. The licensing option will allow competitors, and their employees and shareholders, to survive. It
is a compassionate act on our part and shows mercy to the other competitors in the industry. It recognises the number
of impacts that a business decision has and would be the fairest (and most just) option given the number of people
affected.
第15题:
(b) Discuss ways in which the traditional budgeting process may be seen as a barrier to the achievement of the
aims of EACH of the following models for the implementation of strategic change:
(i) benchmarking;
(ii) balanced scorecard; and
(iii) activity-based models. (12 marks)
第16题:
(b) Identify and discuss the appropriateness of the cost drivers of any TWO expense values in EACH of levels (i)
to (iii) above and ONE value that relates to level (iv).
In addition, suggest a likely cause of the cost driver for any ONE value in EACH of levels (i) to (iii), and
comment on possible benefits from the identification of the cause of each cost driver. (10 marks)
第17题:
(iii) Whether or not you agree with the statement of the marketing director in note (9) above. (5 marks)
Professional marks for appropriateness of format, style. and structure of the report. (4 marks)
(iii) The marketing director is certainly correct in recognising that success is dependent on levels of service quality provided
by HFG to its clients. However, whilst the number of complaints is an important performance measure, it needs to be
used with caution. The nature of a complaint is, very often, far more indicative of the absence, or a lack, of service
quality. For example, the fact that 50 clients complained about having to wait for a longer time than they expected to
access gymnasium equipment is insignificant when compared to an accident arising from failure to maintain properly a
piece of gymnasium equipment. Moreover, the marketing director ought to be aware that the absolute number of
complaints may be misleading as much depends on the number of clients serviced during any given period. Thus, in
comparing the number of complaints received by the three centres then a relative measure of complaints received per
1,000 client days would be far more useful than the absolute number of complaints received.
The marketing director should also be advised that the number of complaints can give a misleading picture of the quality
of service provision since individuals have different levels of willingness to complain in similar situations.
The marketing director seems to accept the current level of complaints but is unwilling to accept any increase above this
level. This is not indicative of a quality-oriented organisation which would seek to reduce the number of complaints over
time via a programme of ‘continuous improvement’.
From the foregoing comments one can conclude that it would be myopic to focus on the number of client complaints
as being the only performance measure necessary to measure the quality of service provision. Other performance
measures which may indicate the level of service quality provided to clients by HFG are as follows:
– Staff responsiveness assumes critical significance in service industries. Hence the time taken to resolve client
queries by health centre staff is an important indicator of the level of service quality provided to clients.
– Staff appearance may be viewed as reflecting the image of the centres.
– The comfort of bedrooms and public rooms including facilities such as air-conditioning, tea/coffee-making and cold
drinks facilities, and office facilities such as e-mail, facsimile and photocopying.
– The availability of services such as the time taken to gain an appointment with a dietician or fitness consultant.
– The cleanliness of all areas within the centres will enhance the reputation of HFG. Conversely, unclean areas will
potentially deter clients from making repeat visits and/or recommendations to friends, colleagues etc.
– The presence of safety measures and the frequency of inspections made regarding gymnasium equipment within
the centres and compliance with legislation are of paramount importance in businesses like that of HFG.
– The achievement of target reductions in weight that have been agreed between centre consultants and clients.
(Other relevant measures would be acceptable.)
第18题:
(iii) State any disadvantages to the relief in (i) that Sharon should be aware of, and identify and describe
another relief that she might use. (4 marks)
第19题:
(iii) State how your answer in (ii) would differ if the sale were to be delayed until August 2006. (3 marks)
第20题:
(iii) The extent to which Amy will be subject to income tax in the UK on her earnings in respect of duties
performed for Cutlass Inc and the travel costs paid for by that company. (5 marks)
Appropriateness of format and presentation of the report and the effectiveness with which its advice is
communicated. (2 marks)
Note:
You should assume that the income tax rates and allowances for the tax year 2006/07 and the corporation tax
rates and allowances for the financial year 2006 apply throughout this questio
第21题:
In relation to company law, explain:
(a) the limitations on the use of company names; (4 marks)
(b) the tort of ‘passing off’; (4 marks)
(c) the role of the company names adjudicators under the Companies Act 2006. (2 marks)
(a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies, such as those involved in charitable work, companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names, either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’, and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’. Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58, 59 & 60).
Companies Registry maintains a register of business names, and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66).
Certain categories of names are, subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, unacceptable per se, as follows:
(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)
(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54).
(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b)). This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list, and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.
Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances:
(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar’s index of company names.
(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.
The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77).
(b) The tort of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup
Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with
his existing dairy company. It cannot be used, however, if there is no likelihood of the public being confused, where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)
and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984). Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902)).
Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006, which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985, still does not prevent one business from using the same, or a very similar, name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985, a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as, or too like a name appearing on the registrar’s index of company names. In addition, however, a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.
(c) Under ss.69–74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name
(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill, or
(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69).
Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company’s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately, however even then, if the objector can show that the name was registered either, to obtain money from them, or to prevent them from using the name, then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.
Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities, with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.
Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator.
Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it, are to be published within 90 days of the decision.
Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld, then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed, then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.
Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator’s decision, and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.
第22题:
4 (a) ISA 701 Modifications to The Independent Auditor’s Report includes ‘suggested wording of modifying phrases
for use when issuing modified reports’.
Required:
Explain and distinguish between each of the following terms:
(i) ‘qualified opinion’;
(ii) ‘disclaimer of opinion’;
(iii) ‘emphasis of matter paragraph’. (6 marks)
第23题:
2 (a) Define the following terms:
(i) Forensic Accounting;
(ii) Forensic Investigation;
(iii) Forensic Auditing. (6 marks)