Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Try the following steps to resolve browser/session issues:
Clear Browser Data: Clear your browser’s history, cache, and cookies.
Use a Different Browser: Try switching to Chrome, Firefox, or Edge if one is failing.
Disable VPN: If you are using a VPN, disconnect it.
Check Time Settings: Ensure your device has the correct local time zone.
Restart Application: If it persists, you may need to restart the application in a fresh session as suggested by the error message.If the error continues after trying the above, you should:
Take a screenshot of the error, including the URL.
Contact ACCA support directly, noting exactly which part of the application is failing.Adverse and disclaimed opinions are very rare in practice. The best example is when FS are prepared on a GC basis when that basis is NOT appropriate (not when there is material uncertainty, because GC is the appropriate basis in that case).
There can be numerous individual qualifications that collectively are judged to not be pervasive. (I once had a real example of an auditor’s report that had 21 separate qualifications… or perhaps it was 22 …)
Let me clarify. Less than the lower limit is generally considered immaterial. Above the upper limit is material. In-between is a matter of professional judgment.
If an auditor considers that an overstatement that is 7% of profit is material to a set of financialstatements, they must also consider amounts that are 8%, 9%, 10% … 29%…. 54% …. to be material.
Pervasive is not a “degree” of materiality but how the actual or potential misstatements affect the financial statements as a whole.
Short answer – NO. If published answers were restricted to the number of available marks, tutors would ask ACCA and students would pester tutors “what about [another valid point]? Does this get credit?]
As it says in the examiner’s reports, there are always more valid points that can be made, than are asked for. Published answers, which are reproduced by content providers, are comprehensive as that is a better learning/revision tool than if they omit points that would earn credit.
Exactly that! Something is not permitted if no amount of safeguards could reduce the threat to an acceptable level.
Welcome to my forum!
Not “AND” but “OR” – if removed, their work doesn’t need additional scrutinty – if not removed, scrutinise.
Welcome to our forums – but you do not need to duplicate your post. I will close this thread as I am sure John will reply to you on the MA tutor forum.
Hello again! Short answer – yes!
You need to know, for example, how to measure and account for an impairment loss (and reverse it, when required) but not which IAS or IFRS has the requirement(s).
It is very strange indeed and I’ve not seen this query before. I have checked to two other sources reproducing this Q – and they have the same “discrepancy” (I do have the original in my office but won’t be there until Monday).
Possibly it is a mistake, and I don’t think it has any bearing on the question in this instance. (It could be that the Q was originally written just before the standardisation of it is 1 July 20X5, and that it wasn’t checked before it was set.) I think where dates are important they are checked.
But you are absolutely right – the nature of the question suggests that we should be before the reporting date. It would be interesting to look at a more recent controls Q to see if this discrepancy is repeated. (I suspect not, or I think someone would have drawn it to my attention before!)
In practice 3-way matching is a payment verification technique – i.e. before you pay a supplier you agree that what you have been invoiced for is what you received – and what you ordered.
Whether thinking about a sales or purchases system and invoice s/be matched to goods despatched/received – which should be matched to an order BUT many businesses won’t hold up invoicing customers/accepting invoices from suppliers if the quantity despatched/received does not match the order. This wil typically happen where the supplier does not have sufficient quantity in stock to fulfil an order. Eg – customer orders 100, only 70 in inventory – GDN says 70 and invoice based on 70. There’s no point matching to the order.
I don’t have Kaplan books – but here is a point from an AA answer – my comment in [ … ]:
“For a sample of additions recorded in P&E [i.e. asset register] physically verify [i.e. inspect] them on the factory floor to confirm existence.”
It is physical inspection that is conclusive evidence for existence of any asset.
Q1:
“Are we not testing for the purchases that relates to the PPE?” Short answer – YES!
It’s not a “trick” – additions are transactions. Selecting from the NCA register is also testing the assertion “classification” – i.e. it has been recorded as asset expenditure, so let’s look at the purchase invoice and makes sure it isn’t expense – like a repair.Q2:”How would this be different if we’re selecting a sample from the detailed purchase listing and agree the details (e.g. description, amount and date) to the purchase invoice? ”
It wouldn’t be any different in the sense that what you are testing is the occurrence of the transaction – only because a sample from the detailed listing would include all credit purchases – so for goods and services as well as asset expenditure.
Q3: And please, please, ….
What can I say? asset v expense is classification – it has nothing to do with existence. Just because you bought it during the year doesn’t mean it exists at the reporting date, because you could have sold it – or destroyed it (!)
For more technical detail, I should also add that the response should take into account whether the property is measured under the cost or revaluation model – don’t assume the latter. For example, a property (like any item of PPE) that is be carried at cost less accumulated depreciation may be overstated if it is damaged during the year. Here the auditor could look to a quote to repair the damage (most likely required for an insurance claim) as an estimate for a write-down in value.
Where the property is measured at a revalued amount – and let’s say the revaluation has been performed by the directors or someone internal, the auditor will need to look at the supporting workings, etc – it can’t be a figure plucked out of the air – which might include, for example, “cost per square metre” – for which there should be market data for comparison.
Welcome to OpenTuition! Could you please ask further questions on my tutor forum https://opentuition.com/forum/ask-acca-tutor-forums/ask-the-tutor-acca-audit-and-assurance-aa-exams (which is where I am supposed to answer students’ queries)
Short answer – NO because
1. It’s a “cop out”
2. There should be other sources of evidence
3. It shows a lack of commercial acumen (a professional skill that you will be expected to demonstrate at the strategic level) because experts cost money, which the client will ultimately have to pay in the audit fee.@mishalrajput please ask on the relevant tutor forum. This is just an information post.
It is a common query – the thing to remember is that ADDITIONS are purchases – which are transactions (see Ch12 in the Study Hub s.9.2 starts “Internal controls and tests of controls include those for the purchase cycle …”)
It cannot be existence because that is an assertion for balances “at the reporting date”. (Or “period end” if looking at our summary in Chapter 16 of our notes https://opentuition.com/acca/aa
@janchow who said it was sorted is more likely to see your related post if you post on the same thread https://opentuition.com/topic/access-to-epsm-in-myacca-issue
WELCOME to my AA forum and please accept my sincerest apologies for not replying sooner!
As is stated in the examiner’s report https://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-students/acca/f8/examinersreports/aa-sd21-examiner-report.pdf
“Marks are awarded for identification of deficiencies (½ mark each), explanation of
the implication of the deficiency to the company (½ mark each) and an appropriate
control recommendation to address each deficiency (1 mark each).
The scenario will typically contain more than the number of deficiencies required … ”So if you separate into 2 points and for each you have a different implication and different control recommendation you would be awarded up to 4 marks. I suggest that the model answer (reproduced by Kaplan) combines because it is matched with only one control recommendation (review of exception reports by a responsible official).
I should also clarify that the appeal process does not follow on from the issue of results First you have to apply for an admin review. Only after that can you appeal. I have been answering posts about admin reviews here for nearly 8 years, and not once has a student reported a change in outcome.
