- This topic has 126 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
- Posts
Whereabouts are you from? I’m from the UK and due to sit SBR but have heard that there have been a dew technical issues
@caroline no bother at all. I sat my exam in Dublin as a CBE on the INT variant.
From memory:
Q1
a – Audit risks (travel company) 26 marks
b – Audit procedures – Operating Segment 5 marks
c – Acceptance decision on Social Environmental assurance engagement (Ethics) 10 marks
d – Data Analytics 5 marksQ2
Quality Control issues in an audit of Group and it’s subsidiaries
a – Sub located in Foreign country and outsourced IA 7 marks
b – mind has gone blank 🙂 5 marks
c – Internal control testing not carried out 5 marks
d – Sub failed to account for related party transactions 8 marksQ3
a – Matters to consider + Evidence
(i) Provision 6 marks
(ii) Lease 7 marks
b – Reliance on Written representations 6 marks
c- Audit Report Appraisal 6 marksyou cannot navigate to next question unless you scrolled through the whole page.
My time management was a mess, on question 1, I 1st made some analytical procedures, made reference to materiality PRA(PBT,revenue, TA), on internally generated Intangibles, IAS 38 requires a split between research &Dev, expense the former, capitalise the latter provided PIRATE criteria is met.
on the procedures, and matters to consider, I share the same as aboveon Q2, I made reference to LEAHEM acronym on QC, and made reference to the scenario.
I also made reference to IFRS 15 with 5 steps/stage for revenue recognition
Q3- I ran out of time and just attempted section b for 10marks… Only God knows,No. I was annoyed with myself because I messed my timing up. I thought the content was ok but difficult to get through in the time available.
This happened to me in March and then missed out because of Covid in June. Finally able to sit it yesterday, best of luck, we’ll all get there eventually 🙂
Agreed, really struggled with the time. I knew time was getting away from me, even though I planned and I couldn’t pull it back. I wonder about answering these type of exams under such time pressure. I think it’s a poor precedent. Surely in the profession we should promote diligence over haste, and the exams should try to reflect real like as far as they can. I’m not saying no time limit, but a reasonable one?
@kbourne i had the same i didnt get ifrs 5 i had provision and leases in my exam. I think whoever had an exam in the afternoon they had a slightly different exam to the ones in the morning
i could not even started the exam waited for almost 3 hours but there was so so many issues and at the end they simply revoked the exam
Re related parties
I cannot remeber the scenario by heart, maybe one of you does.
The finance director/CFO I cannot remember his position was an owner of another company where his son was the director of this company.
I said that it was not a related party transaction.
Am I right please?
Key Member represented on another Company in a significant position is a related party.
Yes, that’s correct. I also remember adding that although he was chairman for the board and technically isn’t able to solely execute decisions for the company (It is advised chairman and CEO can’t/shouldn’t be the same person for this reason), his son is CEO and he would at least be able to exert significant influence because of the close relationship..so either way it needs to be disclosed.
What Audit opinion did people put for the sale of division? curious about that one.
Qualified opinion as matter is significant but not pervasive. It should be classified as held for sale and discontinued operations.
OK – I put adverse opinion as didn’t value it correctly as HFS nor disclosed the sale at all. In any case as long as we justify the basis of our opinions should be fine as in practice not every auditor will have the same opinion
I also added adverse, as it was the significant division. Furthermore, maybe, the operations were discontinued during the year, with no such disclosure, the user of the of the financials are significantly mislead, i believe. But at the end, it is auditor Judgement.
I believe being Chairman is key management position, and does have rights to drive the board.
Well, we had revenues with significant growth for this division year over year so it’s hard to assume it was discontinued during the year. It was also clearly stated they are going to do this next year.
Division was indeed significant and disclosure is needed in this case as well as reclassification of assets to current and proper presentation of discontinued operations in P&L. For adverse opinion it needs to be pervasive though which in my opinion is not the case here. But probably if you explain somehow why this is pervasive to financial statement then adverse opinion is also an option.Hmm…any HFS asset still needs to be reported on until it’s actually sold. It’s the disclosure part that it’s HFS and separate line classification is very important in SFP to show a true and fair view and they didn’t do either of those. They actually valued the division using VIU and not lower of CV vs FV-CTS.
We are told the sale will be shortly after yr end as they had already found a buyer. It would be an adjusting event as it is due to happen shortly after the year end and the conditions this is very likely currently exist. The auditor would be responsible for detecting this and making sure the statement reflects what will shortly happen, everything disclosed, etc.
The sale would mean all that division’s assets and liabilities and all those figures reported on will cease to exist. Kind of like knowing the division will not be a going concern but not saying anything about it I thought??
It’s an interesting one though – I thought to pick the brains of others on here about this one so thank you for also giving the other side of it!
Yep, and that’s exactly why it is significant matter therefore modificated opinion is needed. On the other hand qualified opinion seems to be the most appropriate. In balance sheet it’s all about reclass (plus 1m diff on valuation) and in P&L it’s separate line but no impact to overall result. It’s therefore unlikely to assume it’s pervasive which is needed for adverse opinion. Once qualified it can be easily explained in basis for qualification and users will have all needed information to properly ready financial statement.
It is not only matter of classification on balance sheet, i assume the assets and liabilities will also be included in Non-Current category also, meeting IFRS 5 they should be shown as current which is very significant in its nature, and can distort many ratios and decisions.
Audit report wont provide detailed analysis.
And as the division is going to be sold soon after it means that division has already reduced significantly in its operations, the Chairman statement was clearly in contradiction with actual facts, and misleading to the users. If assets are sold, there is no way they can produce or operate. Again, it is matter of judgement in an exam as not all facts and details are provided, assumptions can be made.
In the question of asset held for sale, it is said that promoter has no plan for selling of division before the reporting date. Therefore, ifrs 5 not applied here. It is to be considered as non adjusted event as per ias10 and proper disclosure s to be provided.
Ifrs 5 applications not desirable in this question as Management was not committed for salebegore reporting date
- The topic ‘ACCA Paper AAA September 2020 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments’ is closed to new replies.