(ii) how effective delegation might be achieved; (6 marks)
(ii) how effective delegation might be achieved; (6 marks)
相关考题：
(b) Discuss the key issues which the statement of cash flows highlights regarding the cash flow of the company.(10 marks)
(c) Briefly discuss why the directors of HFL might choose contract D irrespective of whether or not contract Dwould have been selected using expected values as per part (a). (2 marks)
JOL Co was the market leader with a share of 30% three years ago. The managing director of JOL Co stated at arecent meeting of the board of directors that: ‘our loss of market share during the last three years might lead to theend of JOL Co as an organisation and therefore we must address this issue immediately’.Required:(b) Discuss the statement of the managing director of JOL Co and discuss six performance indicators, other thandecreasing market share, which might indicate that JOL Co might fail as a corporate entity. (10 marks)
(b) The tax relief available in respect of the anticipated trading losses, together with supporting calculations anda recommended structure for the business. (16 marks)
(b) Explain the matters you should consider before accepting an engagement to conduct a due diligence reviewof MCM. (10 marks)
4 (a) The purpose of ISA 510 ‘Initial Engagements – Opening Balances’ is to establish standards and provide guidanceregarding opening balances when the financial statements are audited for the first time or when the financialstatements for the prior period were audited by another auditor.Required:Explain the auditor’s reporting responsibilities that are specific to initial engagements. (5 marks)
(ii) State the principal audit procedures to be performed on the consolidation schedule of the Rosie Group.(4 marks)
6 Charles and Jane Miro, aged 31 and 34 years respectively, have been married for ten years and have two childrenaged six and eight years. Charles is a teacher but for the last five years he has stayed at home to look after theirchildren. Jane works as a translator for Speak Write Ltd.Speak Write Ltd was formed and began trading on 6 April 2006. It provides translation services to universities. Jane,who ceased employment with Barnham University to found the company, owns 100% of its ordinary share capitaland is its only employee.Speak Write Ltd has translated documents for four different universities since it began trading. Its biggest client isBarnham University which represents 70% of the company’s gross income. It is estimated that the company’s grossfee income for its first 12 months of trading will be ￡110,000. Speak Write Ltd usually agrees fixed fees in advancewith its clients although it charges for some projects by reference to the number of days taken to do the work. Noneof the universities makes any payment to Speak Write Ltd in respect of Jane being on holiday or sick.All of the universities insist that Jane does the work herself. Jane carries out the work for three of the universities inher office at home using a computer and specialised software owned by Speak Write Ltd. The work she does forBarnham University is done in the university’s library on one of its computers as the documents concerned are toodelicate to move.The first set of accounts for Speak Write Ltd will be drawn up for the year ending 5 April 2007. It is estimated thatthe company’s tax adjusted trading profit for this period will be ￡52,500. This figure is after deducting Jane’s salaryof ￡4,000 per month and the related national insurance contributions but before any adjustments required by theapplication of the personal service companies (IR 35) legislation. The company has no other sources of income orcapital gains.Jane has not entered into any communication with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) with respect to the companyand wants to know:– When the corporation tax computation should be submitted and when the tax is due.– When the corporation tax computation can be regarded as having been agreed by HMRC.Charles and Jane have requested a meeting to discuss the family’s finances. In particular, they wish to consider theshortfall in the family’s annual income and any other related issues if Jane were to die. Their mortgage is coveredby a term assurance policy but neither of them have made any pension contributions or carried out any other longterm financial planning.Jane has estimated that her annual after tax income from Speak Write Ltd, on the assumption that she extracts all ofthe company’s profits, will be ￡58,000. Charles owns two investment properties that together generate after taxincome of ￡8,500. He estimates that he could earn ￡28,000 after tax if he were to return to work.The couple’s annual surplus income, after payment of all household expenditure including mortgage payments of￡900 per month, is ￡21,000. Charles and Jane have no other sources of income.Required:(a) Write a letter to Jane setting out:(i) the arguments that HMRC could put forward, based only on the facts set out above, in support ofapplying the IR 35 legislation to Speak Write Ltd; and(ii) the additional income tax and national insurance contributions that would be payable, together withtheir due date of payment, if HMRC applied the IR 35 legislation to all of the company’s income in2006/07. (11 marks)
This information was taken from an internal newsletter of The Knowledge Partnership LLP (TKP), a company which offers project and software consultancy work for clients based in Zeeland. The newsletter was dated 2 November 2014 and describes two projects currently being undertaken by the partnership.Project OneIn this project, one of our clients was just about to place a contract for a time recording system to help them monitor and estimate construction contracts when we were called in by the Finance Director. He was concerned about the company supplying the software package. ‘They only have an annual revenue of $5m’, he said, ‘and that worries me.’ TKP analysed software companies operating in Zeeland. It found that 200 software companies were registered in Zeeland with annual revenues of between $3m and $10m. Of these, 20 went out of business last year. This compared to a 1% failure rate for software companies with revenues of more than $100m per year. We presented this information to the client and suggested that this could cause a short-term support problem. The client immediately re-opened the procurement process. Eventually they bought a solution from a much larger well-known software supplier. It is a popular software solution, used in many larger companies.The client has now asked us to help with the implementation of the package. A budget for the project has been agreed and has been documented in an agreed, signed-off, business case. The client has a policy of never re-visiting its business cases once they have been accepted; they see this as essential for effective cost control. We are currently working with the primary users of the software – account managers (using time and cost data to monitor contracts) and the project support office (using time and cost data to improve contract estimating) – to ensure that they can use the software effectively when it is implemented. We have also given ‘drop in’ briefing sessions for the client’s employees who are entering the time and cost data analysed by the software. They already record this information on a legacy system and so all they will see is a bright new user interface, but we need to keep them informed about our implementation. We are also looking at data migration from the current legacy system. We think some of the current data might be of poor quality, so we have established a strategy for data cleansing (through offshore data input) if this problem materialises. We currently estimate that the project will go live in May 2015.Project TwoIn this project, the client is the developer of the iProjector, a tiny phone-size projector which is portable, easy to use and offers high definition projection. The client was concerned that their product is completely dependent on a specialist image-enhancing chip designed and produced by a small start-up technology company. They asked TKP to investigate this company. We confirmed their fears. The company has been trading for less than three years and it has a very inexperienced management team. We suggested that the client should establish an escrow agreement for design details of the chip and suggested a suitable third party to hold this agreement. We also suggested that significant stocks of the chip should be maintained. The client also asked TKP to look at establishing patents for the iProjector throughout the world. Again, using our customer contacts, we put them in touch with a company which specialises in this. We are currently engaged with the client in examining the risk that a major telephone producer will launch a competitive product with functionality and features similar to the iProjector.The iProjector is due to be launched on 1 May 2015 and we have been engaged to give advice on the launch of the product. The launch has been heavily publicised, a prestigious venue booked and over 400 attendees are expected. TKP have arranged for many newspaper journalists to attend. The product is not quite finished, so although orders will be taken at the launch, the product is not expected to ship until June 2015.Further information:TKP only undertakes projects in the business culture which it understands and where it feels comfortable. Consequently, it does not undertake assignments outside Zeeland.TKP has $10,000,000 of consultant’s liability insurance underwritten by Zeeland Insurance Group (ZIG).Required:(a) Analyse how TKP itself and the two projects described in the scenario demonstrate the principles of effective risk management. (15 marks)(b) Describe the principle of the triple constraint (scope, time and cost) on projects and discuss its implications in the two projects described in the scenario. (10 marks)
You are the audit supervisor of Maple Co and are currently planning the audit of an existing client, Sycamore Science Co (Sycamore), whose year end was 30 April 2015. Sycamore is a pharmaceutical company, which manufactures and supplies a wide range of medical supplies. The draft financial statements show revenue of $35·6 million and profit before tax of $5·9 million.Sycamore’s previous finance director left the company in December 2014 after it was discovered that he had been claiming fraudulent expenses from the company for a significant period of time. A new finance director was appointed in January 2015 who was previously a financial controller of a bank, and she has expressed surprise that Maple Co had not uncovered the fraud during last year’s audit.During the year Sycamore has spent $1·8 million on developing several new products. These projects are at different stages of development and the draft financial statements show the full amount of $1·8 million within intangible assets. In order to fund this development, $2·0 million was borrowed from the bank and is due for repayment over a ten-year period. The bank has attached minimum profit targets as part of the loan covenants.The new finance director has informed the audit partner that since the year end there has been an increased number of sales returns and that in the month of May over $0·5 million of goods sold in April were returned.Maple Co attended the year-end inventory count at Sycamore’s warehouse. The auditor present raised concerns that during the count there were movements of goods in and out the warehouse and this process did not seem well controlled.During the year, a review of plant and equipment in the factory was undertaken and surplus plant was sold, resulting in a profit on disposal of $210,000.Required:(a) State Maples Co’s responsibilities in relation to the prevention and detection of fraud and error. (4 marks)(b) Describe SIX audit risks, and explain the auditor’s response to each risk, in planning the audit of Sycamore Science Co. (12 marks)(c) Sycamore’s new finance director has read about review engagements and is interested in the possibility of Maple Co undertaking these in the future. However, she is unsure how these engagements differ from an external audit and how much assurance would be gained from this type of engagement.Required:(i) Explain the purpose of review engagements and how these differ from external audits; and (2 marks)(ii) Describe the level of assurance provided by external audits and review engagements. (2 marks)