Explain the grounds upon which a person may be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.(10 marks)
第1题:
3 The directors of Panel, a public limited company, are reviewing the procedures for the calculation of the deferred tax
provision for their company. They are quite surprised at the impact on the provision caused by changes in accounting
standards such as IFRS1 ‘First time adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards’ and IFRS2 ‘Share-based
Payment’. Panel is adopting International Financial Reporting Standards for the first time as at 31 October 2005 and
the directors are unsure how the deferred tax provision will be calculated in its financial statements ended on that
date including the opening provision at 1 November 2003.
Required:
(a) (i) Explain how changes in accounting standards are likely to have an impact on the provision for deferred
taxation under IAS12 ‘Income Taxes’. (5 marks)
(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.)
第2题:
(c) On 1 May 2007 Sirus acquired another company, Marne plc. The directors of Marne, who were the only
shareholders, were offered an increased profit share in the enlarged business for a period of two years after the
date of acquisition as an incentive to accept the purchase offer. After this period, normal remuneration levels will
be resumed. Sirus estimated that this would cost them $5 million at 30 April 2008, and a further $6 million at
30 April 2009. These amounts will be paid in cash shortly after the respective year ends. (5 marks)
Required:
Draft a report to the directors of Sirus which discusses the principles and nature of the accounting treatment of
the above elements under International Financial Reporting Standards in the financial statements for the year
ended 30 April 2008.
第3题:
(c) Discuss the ethical responsibility of the company accountant in ensuring that manipulation of the statement
of cash flows, such as that suggested by the directors, does not occur. (5 marks)
Note: requirements (b) and (c) include 2 professional marks in total for the quality of the discussion.
第4题:
5 The directors of Quapaw, a limited liability company, are reviewing the company’s draft financial statements for the
year ended 31 December 2004.
The following material matters are under discussion:
(a) During the year the company has begun selling a product with a one-year warranty under which manufacturing
defects are remedied without charge. Some claims have already arisen under the warranty. (2 marks)
Required:
Advise the directors on the correct treatment of these matters, stating the relevant accounting standard which
justifies your answer in each case.
NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three matters
第5题:
(c) Critically discuss FOUR principal roles of non-executive directors and explain the potential tensions between
these roles that WM’s non-executive directors may experience in advising on the disclosure of the
overestimation of the mallerite reserve. (12 marks)
第6题:
(c) Define ‘retirement by rotation’ and explain its importance in the context of Rosh and Company.
(5 marks)
第7题:
(b) Identify and explain THREE approaches that the directors of Moffat Ltd might apply in assessing the
QUALITATIVE benefits of the proposed investment in a new IT system. (6 marks)
第8题:
(b) (i) Advise the directors of GWCC on specific actions which may be considered in order to improve the
estimated return on their investment of £1,900,000. (8 marks)
第9题:
(b) Explain how growth may be assessed, and critically discuss the advantages and issues that might arise as a
result of a decision by the directors of CSG to pursue the objective of growth. (8 marks)
第10题:
(c) Explain the reasons for the concerns of the government of Happyland with companies such as TMC and
advise the directors of a strategy that might be considered in order to avoid being subject to any forthcoming
legislation concerning the environment. (5 marks)
第11题:
In relation to the law of contract, distinguish between and explain the effect of:
(a) a term and a mere representation; (3 marks)
(b) express and implied terms, paying particular regard to the circumstances under which terms may be implied in contracts. (7 marks)
This question requires candidates to consider the law relating to terms in contracts. It specifically requires the candidates to distinguish between terms and mere representations and then to establish the difference between express and implied terms in contracts.
(a) As the parties to a contract will be bound to perform. any promise they have contracted to undertake, it is important to distinguish between such statements that will be considered part of the contract, i.e. terms, and those other pre-contractual statements which are not considered to be part of the contract, i.e. mere representations. The reason for distinguishing between them is that there are different legal remedies available if either statement turns out to be incorrect.
A representation is a statement that induces a contract but does not become a term of the contract. In practice it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two, but in attempting to do so the courts will focus on when the statement was made in relation to the eventual contract, the importance of the statement in relation to the contract and whether or not the party making the statement had specialist knowledge on which the other party relied (Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) and Dick
Bentley v Arnold Smith Motors (1965)).
(b) Express terms are statements actually made by one of the parties with the intention that they become part of the contract and
thus binding and enforceable through court action if necessary. It is this intention that distinguishes the contractual term from
the mere representation, which, although it may induce the contractual agreement, does not become a term of the contract.
Failure to comply with the former gives rise to an action for breach of contract, whilst failure to comply with the latter only gives rise to an action for misrepresentation.
Such express statements may be made by word of mouth or in writing as long as they are sufficiently clear for them to be enforceable. Thus in Scammel v Ouston (1941) Ouston had ordered a van from the claimant on the understanding that the balance of the purchase price was to be paid ‘on hire purchase terms over two years’. When Scammel failed to deliver the van Ouston sued for breach of contract without success, the court holding that the supposed terms of the contract were too
uncertain to be enforceable. There was no doubt that Ouston wanted the van on hire purchase but his difficulty was that
Scammel operated a range of hire purchase terms and the precise conditions of his proposed hire purchase agreement were
never sufficiently determined.
Implied terms, however, are not actually stated or expressly included in the contract, but are introduced into the contract by implication. In other words the exact meaning and thus the terms of the contract are inferred from its context. Implied terms can be divided into three types.
Terms implied by statute
In this instance a particular piece of legislation states that certain terms have to be taken as constituting part of an agreement, even where the contractual agreement between the parties is itself silent as to that particular provision. For example, under s.5 of the Partnership Act 1890, every member of an ordinary partnership has the implied power to bind the partnership in a contract within its usual sphere of business. That particular implied power can be removed or reduced by the partnership agreement and any such removal or reduction of authority would be effective as long as the other party was aware of it. Some implied terms, however, are completely prescriptive and cannot be removed.
Terms implied by custom or usage
An agreement may be subject to terms that are customarily found in such contracts within a particular market, trade or locality. Once again this is the case even where it is not actually specified by the parties. For example, in Hutton v Warren (1836), it was held that customary usage permitted a farm tenant to claim an allowance for seed and labour on quitting his tenancy. It should be noted, however, that custom cannot override the express terms of an agreement (Les Affreteurs Reunnis SA v Walford (1919)).
Terms implied by the courts Generally, it is a matter for the parties concerned to decide the terms of a contract, but on occasion the court will presume that the parties intended to include a term which is not expressly stated. They will do so where it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract.
Whether a term may be implied can be decided on the basis of the officious bystander test. Imagine two parties, A and B, negotiating a contract, when a third party, C, interrupts to suggest a particular provision. A and B reply that that particular term is understood. In just such a way, the court will decide that a term should be implied into a contract.
In The Moorcock (1889), the appellants, owners of a wharf, contracted with the respondents to permit them to discharge their ship at the wharf. It was apparent to both parties that when the tide was out the ship would rest on the riverbed. When the tide was out, the ship sustained damage by settling on a ridge. It was held that there was an implied warranty in the contract that the place of anchorage should be safe for the ship. As a consequence, the ship owner was entitled to damages for breach of that term.
Alternatively the courts will imply certain terms into unspecific contracts where the parties have not reduced the general agreement into specific details. Thus in contracts of employment the courts have asserted the existence of implied terms to impose duties on both employers and employees, although such implied terms can be overridden by express contractual provision to the contrary.
第12题:
failure of proper operation of propulsion
paint peeling off the uptake
no operation procedures for the oil separators
damaged sanitary pump
第13题:
(c) the deferred tax implications (with suitable calculations) for the company which arise from the recognition
of a remuneration expense for the directors’ share options. (7 marks)
第14题:
(d) Sirus raised a loan with a bank of $2 million on 1 May 2007. The market interest rate of 8% per annum is to
be paid annually in arrears and the principal is to be repaid in 10 years time. The terms of the loan allow Sirus
to redeem the loan after seven years by paying the full amount of the interest to be charged over the ten year
period, plus a penalty of $200,000 and the principal of $2 million. The effective interest rate of the repayment
option is 9·1%. The directors of Sirus are currently restructuring the funding of the company and are in initial
discussions with the bank about the possibility of repaying the loan within the next financial year. Sirus is
uncertain about the accounting treatment for the current loan agreement and whether the loan can be shown as
a current liability because of the discussions with the bank. (6 marks)
Appropriateness of the format and presentation of the report and quality of discussion (2 marks)
Required:
Draft a report to the directors of Sirus which discusses the principles and nature of the accounting treatment of
the above elements under International Financial Reporting Standards in the financial statements for the year
ended 30 April 2008.
第15题:
4 (a) A company may choose to finance its activities mainly by equity capital, with low borrowings (low gearing) or by
relying on high borrowings with relatively low equity capital (high gearing).
Required:
Explain why a highly geared company is generally more risky from an investor’s point of view than a company
with low gearing. (3 marks)
第16题:
4 (a) Explain the meaning of the term ‘working capital cycle’ for a trading company. (4 marks)
第17题:
(c) Explain the benefits of performance-related pay in rewarding directors and critically evaluate the implications
of the package offered to Choo Wang. (8 marks)
第18题:
(d) Explain the term ‘environmental management accounting’ and the benefits that may accrue to organisations
which adopt it. (4 marks)
第19题:
(b) Explain how the use of SWOT analysis may be of assistance to the management of Diverse Holdings Plc.
(3 marks)
第20题:
3 The Chemical Services Group plc (CSG), which operates a divisionalised structure, provides services to industrial and
domestic customers in Swingland, a country whose economic climate is subject to significant variations. There have
been a number of recent changes at board level within CSG and therefore the managing director called a meeting of
the board of directors at which each of four recently appointed directors put forward their view as to what their primary
focus should be. These were as follows:
The research and development director stated that ‘my primary focus is upon ensuring that we continue to develop
the products and services that satisfy the requirements of our existing and potential customers’.
The finance director stated that ‘my primary focus is upon keeping our investors satisfied’.
The human resources director stated that ‘my primary focus is upon ensuring that we take all the steps necessary to
establish and maintain our reputation as a responsible employer’.
The corporate affairs director stated that ‘my primary focus is upon the need to ensure that we are recognised as a
socially responsible organisation’.
Required:
(a) Discuss the criteria that should be considered in deciding upon suitable performance measures in respect of
the primary focus of each of the FOUR directors of CSG providing THREE appropriate quantitative measures
for each primary focus.
Note: your answer may include financial or non-financial quantitative measures. (12 marks)
第21题:
(b) Explain FIVE critical success factors to the performance of HSC on which the directors must focus if HSC is
to achieve success in its marketplace. (10 marks)
第22题:
(b) GHG has always used local labour to build and subsequently operate hotels. The directors of GHG are again
considering employing a local workforce not only to build the hotel but also to operate it on a daily basis.
Required:
Explain TWO ways in which the possibility of cultural differences might impact on the performance of a local
workforce in building and operating a hotel in Tomorrowland. (6 marks)
第23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.