高頓小編為各位ACCA學(xué)員整理了歷年考試真題，希望大家查漏補(bǔ)缺，對(duì)考試有所幫助。        Question:
　　Alexandra, a public limited company, designs and manages business solutions and IT infrastructures.
　　(a) In November 2010, Alexandra defaulted on an interest payment on an issued bond loan of $100 million repayable in 2015. The loan agreement stipulates that such default leads to an obligation to repay the whole of the loan immediately, including accrued interest and expenses. The bondholders, however, issued a waiver postponing the interest payment until 31 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, Alexandra felt that a further waiver was required, so requested a meeting of the bondholders and agreed a further waiver of the interest payment to 5 July 2011, when Alexandra was confident it could make the payments. Alexandra classified the loan as long-term debt in its statement of financial position at 30 April 2011 on the basis that the loan was not in default at the end of the reporting period as the bondholders had issued waivers and had not sought redemption.
　　(6 marks)
　　(b) Alexandra enters into contracts with both customers and suppliers. The supplier solves system problems and provides new releases and updates for software. Alexandra provides maintenance services for its customers. In previous years, Alexandra recognised revenue and related costs on software maintenance contracts when the customer was invoiced, which was at the beginning of the contract period. Contracts typically run for two years.
　　During 2010, Alexandra had acquired Xavier Co, which recognised revenue, derived from a similar type of maintenance contract as Alexandra, on a straight-line basis over the term of the contract. Alexandra considered both its own and the policy of Xavier Co to comply with the requirements of IAS 18 Revenue but it decided to adopt the practice of Xavier Co for itself and the group. Alexandra concluded that the two recognition methods did not, in substance, represent two different accounting policies and did not, therefore, consider adoption of the new practice to be a change in policy.
　　In the year to 30 April 2011, Alexandra recognised revenue (and the related costs) on a straight-line basis over the contract term, treating this as a change in an accounting estimate. As a result, revenue and cost of sales were adjusted, reducing the year’s profits by some $6 million. (5 marks)
　　(c) Alexandra has a two-tier board structure consisting of a management and a supervisory board. Alexandra remunerates its board members as follows:
　　– Annual base salary
　　– Variable annual compensation (bonus)
　　– Share options
　　In the group financial statements, within the related parties note under IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures, Alexandra disclosed the total remuneration paid to directors and non-executive directors and a total for each of these boards. No further breakdown of the remuneration was provided.
　　The management board comprises both the executive and non-executive directors. The remuneration of the non-executive directors, however, was not included in the key management disclosures. Some members of the supervisory and management boards are of a particular nationality. Alexandra was of the opinion that in that jurisdiction, it is not acceptable to provide information about remuneration that could be traced back to individuals. Consequently, Alexandra explained that it had provided the related party information in the annual accounts in an ambiguous way to prevent users of the financial statements from tracing remuneration information back to specific individuals. (5 marks)
　　(d) Alexandra’s pension plan was accounted for as a defined benefit plan in 2010. In the year ended 30 April 2011, Alexandra changed the accounting method used for the scheme and accounted for it as a defined contribution plan, restating the comparative 2010 financial information. The effect of the restatement was significant. In the 2011 financial statements, Alexandra explained that, during the year, the arrangements underlying the retirement benefit plan had been subject to detailed review. Since the pension liabilities are fully insured and indexation of future liabilities can be limited up to and including the funds available in a special trust account set up for the plan, which is not at the disposal of Alexandra, the plan qualifies as a defined contribution plan under IAS 19 Employee Benefits rather than a defined benefit plan. Furthermore, the trust account is built up by the insurance company from the surplus yield on investments. The pension plan is an average pay plan in respect of which the entity pays insurance premiums to a third party insurance company to fund the plan. Every year 1% of the pension fund is built up and employees pay a contribution of 4% of their salary, with the employer paying the balance of the contribution. If an employee leaves Alexandra and transfers the pension to another fund, Alexandra is liable for, or is refunded the difference between the benefits the employee is entitled to and the insurance premiums paid. (7 marks)
　　Professional marks will be awarded in question 3 for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
　　Required:
　　Discuss how the above transactions should be dealt with in the financial statements of Alexandra for the year ended 30 April 2011.
　　(25 marks)
　　Answer:
　　(a) The loan should have been classified as short-term debt. According to IAS 1, Presentation of financial statements, a liability should be classified as current if it is due to be settled within 12 months after the date of the statement of financial position. If an issuer breaches an undertaking under a long-term loan agreement on or before the date of the statement of financial position, such that the debt becomes payable on demand, the loan is classified as current even if the lender agrees, after the statement of financial position date, not to demand payment as a consequence of the breach. It follows that a liability should also be classified as current if a waiver is issued before the date of the statement of financial position, but does not give the entity a period of grace ending at least 12 months after the date of the statement of financial position. The default on the interest payment in November represented a default that could have led to a claim from the bondholders to repay the whole of the loan immediately, inclusive of incurred interest and expenses. As a further waiver was issued after the date of the statement of financial position, and only postponed payment for a short period, Alexandra did not have an unconditional right to defer the payment for at least 12 months after the date of the statement of financial position as required by the standard in order to be classified as long-term debt. Alexandra should also consider the impact that a recall of the borrowing would have on the going concern status. If the going concern status is questionable then Alexandra would need to provide additional disclosure surrounding the uncertainty and the possible outcomes if waivers are not renewed. If Alexandra ceases to be a going concern then the financial statements would need to be prepared on a break-up basis.
　　(b) The change in accounting treatment should have been presented as a correction of an error in accordance with IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, as the previous policy applied was not in accordance with IAS 18, Revenue, which requires revenue arising from transactions involving the rendering of services to be recognised with reference to the stage of completion at the date of the statement of financial position. The change in accounting treatment should not be accounted for as a change in estimate. According to IAS 8 changes in an accounting estimate result from changes in circumstances, new information or more experience, which was not the case. Alexandra presented the change as a change in accounting estimate as, in its view, its previous policy complied with the standard and did not breach any of its requirements. However, IAS 18 paragraph 20, requires that revenue associated with the rendering of a service should be recognised by reference to the stage of completion of the transaction at the end of the reporting period, providing that the outcome of the transaction can be estimated reliably. IAS 18 further states that, when the outcome cannot be estimated reliably, revenue should be recognised only to the extent that expenses are recoverable. Given that the maintenance contract with the customer involved the rendering of services over a two-year period, the previous policy applied of recognising revenue on invoice at the commencement of the contract did not comply with IAS 18. The subsequent change in policy to one which recognised revenue over the contract term, therefore, was the correction of an error rather than a change in estimate and should have been presented as such in accordance with IAS 8 and been effected retrospectively. In the opening balance of retained earnings, the income from maintenance contracts that has been recognised in full in the year ended 30 April 2010, needs to be split between that occurring in the year and that to be recognised in future periods. This will result in a net debit to opening retained earnings as less income will be recognised in the prior year. Comparative figures for the income statement require restatement accordingly.
　　In the current year, the maintenance contracts have already been dealt with following the correct accounting policy. The income from the maintenance contracts deferred from the revised opening balance will be recognised in the current year as far as they relate to that period. As the maintenance contracts only run for two years, it is likely that most of the income deferred from the prior year will be recognised in the current period. The outcome of this is that there will be less of an impact on the income statement as although this year’s profits have reduced by $6m, there will be an addition of profits resulting from the recognition of maintenance income deferred from last year.
　　(c) The exclusion of the remuneration of the non-executive directors from key management personnel disclosures did not comply with the requirements of IAS 24 which defines key management personnel as those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or otherwise) of that entity. Alexandra did not comply with paragraph 16 of the standard, which also requires key management personnel remuneration to be analysed by category. The explanation of Alexandra is not acceptable. IAS 24 states that an entity should disclose key management personnel compensation in total and for each of the following categories:
　　(a) short-term employee benefits;
　　(b) post-employment benefits;
　　(c) other long-term benefits;
　　(d) termination benefits; and
　　(e) share-based payment.
　　Providing such disclosure will not give information on what individual board members earn as only totals for each category need be disclosed, hence will not breach any cultural protocol. However legislation from local government and almost certainly local corporate governance will require greater disclosure for public entities such as Alexandra.
　　By not providing an analysis of the total remuneration into the categories prescribed by the standard, the disclosure of key management personnel did not comply with the requirements of IAS 24.
　　(d) Alexandra’s pension arrangement does not meet the criteria as outlined in IAS 19 Employee Benefits for defined contribution accounting on the grounds that the risks, although potentially limited, remained with Alexandra.
　　Alexandra has to provide for an average pay pension plan with limited indexation, the indexation being limited to the amount available in the trust fund. The pension plan qualifies as a defined benefit plan under IAS 19.
　　The following should be taken into account:
　　The insurance contract is between Alexandra and the insurance company, not between the employee and the insurer; the insurance contract is renewed every year. The insurance company determines the insurance premium payable by Alexandra annually.
　　The premium for the employee is fixed and the balance of the required premium rests with Alexandra, exposing the entity to changes in premiums depending on the return on the investments by the insurer and changes in actuarial assumptions. The insurance contract states that when an employee leaves Alexandra and transfers his pension to another fund, Alexandra is liable for or is refunded the difference between the benefits the employee is entitled to based on the pension formula and the entitlement based on the insurance premiums paid. Alexandra is exposed to actuarial risks, i.e. a shortfall or over funding as a consequence of differences between returns compared to assumptions or other actuarial differences.
　　There are the following risks associated with the pension plan:
　　– Investment risk: the insurance company insures against this risk for Alexandra. The insurance premium is determined every year, the insurance company can transfer part of this risk to Alexandra to cover shortfalls. Therefore, the risk is not wholly transferred to the insurance company.
　　– Individual transfer of funds: on transfer of funds, any surplus is refunded to Alexandra while unfunded amounts have to be paid; a risk that can preclude defined contribution accounting.
　　– The agreement between Alexandra and the employees does not include any indication that, in the case of a shortfall in the funding of the plan, the entitlement of the employees may be reduced. Consequently, Alexandra has a legal or constructive obligation to pay further amounts if the insurer did not pay all future employee benefits relating to employee service in the current and prior periods. Therefore the plan is a defined benefit plan.