(a) Gasnature is a publicly traded entity involved in the production and trading of natural gas and oil. Gasnature jointly owns an underground storage facility with another entity, Gogas. Both parties extract gas from offshore gas fields, which they own and operate independently from each other. Gasnature owns 55% of the underground facility and Gogas owns 45%. They have agreed to share services and costs accordingly, with decisions regarding the storage facility requiring unanimous agreement of the parties. The underground facility is pressurised so that the gas is pushed out when extracted. When the gas pressure is reduced to a certain level, the remaining gas is irrecoverable and remains in the underground storage facility until it is decommissioned. Local legislation requires the decommissioning of the storage facility at the end of its useful life. Gasnature wishes to know how to treat the agreement with Gogas including any obligation or possible obligation arising on the underground storage facility and the accounting for the irrecoverable gas. (9 marks)
(b) Gasnature has entered into a 10-year contract with Agas for the purchase of natural gas. Gasnature has made an advance payment to Agas for an amount equal to the total quantity of gas contracted for 10 years which has been calculated using the forecasted price of gas. The advance carries interest of 6% per annum, which is settled by way of the supply of extra gas. Fixed quantities of gas have to be supplied each month and there is a price adjustment mechanism in the contract whereby the difference between the forecasted price of gas and the prevailing market price is settled in cash monthly. If Agas does not deliver gas as agreed, Gasnature has the right to claim compensation at the current market price of gas. Gasnature wishes to know whether the contract with Agas should be accounted for under IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. (6 marks)
(c) Additionally, Gasnature is finalising its financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2015 and has the following issues:
(i) Gasnature purchased a major refinery on 1 January 2015 and the directors estimate that a major overhaul is required every two years. The costs of the overhaul are approximately $5 million which comprises $3 million for parts and equipment and $2 million for labour. The directors proposed to accrue the cost of the overhaul over the two years of operations up to that date and create a provision for the expenditure. (4 marks)
(ii) From October 2014, Gasnature had undertaken exploratory drilling to find gas and up to 31 August 2015 costs of $5 million had been incurred. At 31 August 2015, the results to date indicated that it was probable that there were sufficient economic benefits to carry on drilling and there were no indicators of impairment. During September 2015, additional drilling costs of $2 million were incurred and there was significant evidence that no commercial deposits existed and the drilling was abandoned. (4 marks)
Discuss, with reference to International Financial Reporting Standards, how Gasnature should account for the above agreement and contract, and the issues raised by the directors.
Note: The mark allocation is shown against each of the items above.
Professional marks will be awarded in question 3 for clarity and quality of presentation. (2 marks)
Which one of the following taxes is administered by the local offices of the State Administration of Taxation (State Tax Bureau)？
A.Enterprise income tax (EIT)
B.Individual income tax (IIT)
C.Land appreciation tax (LAT)
D.Business tax (BT)
At 1 April 2014, Tilly owned a property with a carrying amount of $800,000 which had a remaining estimated life of 16 years. The property had not been revalued. On 1 October 2014, Tilly decided to sell the property and correctly classified it as being ‘held-for-sale’. A property agent reported that the property’s fair value less costs to sell at 1 October 2014 was expected to be $790,500 which had not changed at 31 March 2015.
What should be the carrying amount of the property in Tilly’s statement of financial position as at 31 March 2015？
Which of the following statements, relating to the auditor’s responsibilities regarding subsequent events, if any, is/are correct？
(1) Auditors do not have a responsibility to perform. procedures to identify subsequent events after the date of the auditor’s report
(2) Where a material adjusting subsequent event is identified after the financial statements are issued, but prior to approval by the shareholders, the auditor should include a qualified opinion in their audit report if management refuses to adjust the financial statements for the event
C.Both 1 and 2
D.Neither 1 nor 2
Which of the following is an external source of information？
A.Value of sales, analysed for each customer
B.Value of purchases, analysed for each supplier
C.Prices of similar products, analysed for each competitor company
D.Hours worked, analysed for each employee
Caf Co budgeted to sell 10,000 units of a new product in the period at a budgeted selling price of $5 per unit. Actual sales volumes in the period were as budgeted but the actual sales price achieved was only $4 per unit. This was because a competitor launched a similar product at the same time. Caf Co had been unaware that this was going to happen when it prepared its budget and, had it known this, it would have revised its expected selling price to $3·80 per unit, which was the price of the competitor’s product.
What is the sales price planning variance？
Fran, Gram and Hen registered a private limited company Ire Ltd in January 2005 with a share capital of ￡300, which was equally divided between them, with each of them becoming a director of the company.
Although the company did manage to make a small profi t in its fi rst year of trading, it was never a great success and in its second year of trading it made a loss of ￡10,000.
At that time Fran said he thought the company should cease trading and be wound up. Gram and Hen, however,were insistent that the company would be profi table in the long-term so they agreed to carry on the business, with Fran taking less of a part in the day-to-day management of the business, although retaining his position as a company director.
In the course of the next three years Gram and Hen falsifi ed Ire Ltd’s accounts to disguise the fact that the company had continued to suffer losses, until it became obvious that they could no longer hide the company’s debts and that it would have to go into insolvent liquidation, with debts of ￡100,000.
Advise Fran, Gram and Hen as to any potential liability they might face as regards:
(a) fraudulent trading, under both criminal and civil law; (5 marks)
(b) wrongful trading under s.214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. (5 marks)
In a major policy speech, Government finance minister Mrs Wei Yttria said that the audit and assurance industry’s work should always be judged by the effect it has on public confidence in business. She said that it was crucial that professional services such as audit and assurance should always be performed in the public interest and that there should be no material threats to the assurer’s independence. Enron and other corporate failures happened, she said,because some accountants didn’t understand what it was to act in the public interest. She stressed that it was important that firms should not provide more than one service to individual clients. If a firm audited a client then, she said, it shouldn’t provide any other services to that client.
Mr Oggon Mordue, a financial journalist who had worked in audit and assurance for many years, was in the audience.
He suggested that the normal advice on threats to independence was wrong. On the contrary in fact, the more services that a professional services firm can provide to a client the better, as it enables the firm to better understand the client and its commercial and accounting needs. Mrs Yttria disagreed, saying that his views were a good example of professional services firms not acting in the public interest.
Mr Mordue said that when he was a partner at a major professional services firm, he got to know his clients very well through the multiple links that his firm had with them. He said that he knew all about their finances from providing audit and assurance services, all about their tax affairs through tax consulting and was always in a good position to provide any other advice as he had acted as a consultant on other matters for many years including advising on mergers, acquisitions, compliance and legal issues. He became very good friends with the directors of client companies, he said. The clients, he explained, also found the relationship very helpful and the accounting firms did well financially out of it.
Another reporter in the audience argued with Mr Mordue. Ivor Nahum said that Mr Mordue represented the ‘very worst’ of the accounting profession. He said that accounting was a ‘biased and value laden’ profession that served minority interests, was complicit in environmental degradation and could not serve the public interest as long as it primarily served the interests of unfettered capitalism. He said that the public interest was badly served by accounting,as it did not address poverty, animal rights or other social injustices.
(a) Explain, using accounting as an example, what ‘the public interest’ means as used by Mrs Yttria in her
speech. (5 marks)
(b) This requirement concerns ethical threats. It is very important for professional accountants to be aware of ethical threats and to avoid these where possible.
(i) With reference to the case as appropriate, describe five types of ethical threat. (5 marks)
(ii) Assess the ethical threats implied by Mr Mordue’s beliefs. (8 marks)
(c) Assess Ivor Nahum’s remarks about the accounting profession in the light of Gray, Owen & Adams’ deep
green (or deep ecologist) position on social responsibility. (7 marks)
In relation to company law, explain:
(a) the doctrine of capital maintenance; (4 marks)
(b) the circumstances under which both a private and a public company can reduce its capital and the procedure
to be followed. (6 marks)
You are the audit manager of Chestnut & Co and are reviewing the key issues identified in the files of two audit clients.
Palm Industries Co (Palm)
Palm’s year end was 31 March 2015 and the draft financial statements show revenue of $28·2 million, receivables of $5·6 million and profit before tax of $4·8 million. The fieldwork stage for this audit has been completed.
A customer of Palm owed an amount of $350,000 at the year end. Testing of receivables in April highlighted that no amounts had been paid to Palm from this customer as they were disputing the quality of certain goods received from Palm. The finance director is confident the issue will be resolved and no allowance for receivables was made with regards to this balance.
Ash Trading Co (Ash)
Ash is a new client of Chestnut & Co, its year end was 31 January 2015 and the firm was only appointed auditors in February 2015, as the previous auditors were suddenly unable to undertake the audit. The fieldwork stage for this audit is currently ongoing.
The inventory count at Ash’s warehouse was undertaken on 31 January 2015 and was overseen by the company’s internal audit department. Neither Chestnut & Co nor the previous auditors attended the count. Detailed inventory records were maintained but it was not possible to undertake another full inventory count subsequent to the year end.
The draft financial statements show a profit before tax of $2·4 million, revenue of $10·1 million and inventory of $510,000.
For each of the two issues:
(i) Discuss the issue, including an assessment of whether it is material;
(ii) Recommend ONE procedure the audit team should undertake to try to resolve the issue; and
(iii) Describe the impact on the audit report if the issue remains UNRESOLVED.
1 The total marks will be split equally between each of the two issues.
2 Audit report extracts are NOT required.