题目：
(b) The directors of Tunshill are disappointed by the draft profi t for the year ended 30 September 2010. The company’s assistant accountant has suggested two areas where she believes the reported profi t may be improved:(i) A major item of plant that cost $20 million to purchase and install on 1 October 2007 is being depreciated on a straight-line basis over a fi ve-year period (assuming no residual value). The plant is wearing well and at the beginning of the current year (1 October 2009) the production manager believed that the plant was likely to last eight years in total (i.e. from the date of its purchase). The assistant accountant has calculated that, based on an eight-year life (and no residual value) the accumulated depreciation of the plant at 30 September 2010 would be $7·5 million ($20 million/8 years x 3). In the fi nancial statements for the year ended 30 September 2009, the accumulated depreciation was $8 million ($20 million/5 years x 2). Therefore, by adopting an eight-year life, Tunshill can avoid a depreciation charge in the current year and instead credit $0·5 million ($8 million – $7·5 million) to the income statement in the current year to improve the reported profit.(5 marks)(ii) Most of Tunshill’s competitors value their inventory using the average cost (AVCO) basis, whereas Tunshill uses the fi rst in fi rst out (FIFO) basis. The value of Tunshill’s inventory at 30 September 2010 (on the FIFO basis) is $20 million, however on the AVCO basis it would be valued at $18 million. By adopting the same method (AVCO) as its competitors, the assistant accountant says the company would improve its profi t for the year ended 30 September 2010 by $2 million. Tunshill’s inventory at 30 September 2009 was reported as $15 million, however on the AVCO basis it would have been reported as $13·4 million. (5 marks)Required:Comment on the acceptability of the assistant accountant’s suggestions and quantify how they would affect the fi nancial statements if they were implemented under IFRS. Ignore taxation.Note: the mark allocation is shown against each of the two items above.
答案：
参考答案：(i) The main issue here is the estimate of the useful life of a non-current asset. Such estimates form an important part of the accounting estimate of the depreciation charge. Like most estimates, an annual review of their appropriateness is required and it is not unusual, as in this case, to revise the estimate of the remaining useful life of plant. It appears, from the information in the question, that the increase in the estimated remaining useful life of the plant is based on a genuine reassessment by the production manager. This appears to be an acceptable reason for a revision of the plant’s life, whereas it would be unacceptable to increase the estimate simply to improve the company’s reported profi t. That said, the assistant accountant’s calculation of the fi nancial effect of the revised life is incorrect. Where there is an increase (or decrease) in the estimated remaining life of a non-current asset, its carrying amount (at the time of the revision) is allocated over the new remaining life (after allowing for any estimated residual value). The carrying amount at A October B00I is $AB million ($B0 million – $H million accumulated depreciation) and this should be written off over the estimated remaining life of six years (eight years in total less two already elapsed). Thus a charge for depreciation of $B million would be required in the year ended C0 September B0A0 leaving a carrying amount of $A0 million ($AB million – $B million) in the statement of fi nancial position at that date. A depreciation charge for the current year cannot be avoided and there will be no credit to the income statement as suggested by the assistant accountant. It should be noted that the incremental effect of the revision to the estimated life of the plant would be to improve the reported profi t by $B million being the difference between the depreciation based on the old life ($D million) and the new life ($B million).(ii) The appropriateness of the proposed change to the method of valuing inventory is more dubious than the previous example. Whilst both methods (FIFO and AVCO) are acceptable methods of valuing inventory under IAS B Inventories, changing an accounting policy to be consistent with that of competitors is not a convincing reason. Generally changes in accounting policies should be avoided unless a change is required by a new or revised accounting standard or the new policy provides more reliable and relevant information regarding the entity’s position. In any event the assistant accountant’s calculations are again incorrect and would not meet the intention of improving reported profi t. The most obvious error is that changing from FIFO to AVCO will cause a reduction in the value of the closing inventory at C0 September B0A0 effectively reducing, rather than increasing, both the valuation of inventory and reported profit. A change in accounting policy must be accounted for as if the new policy had always been in place (retrospective application). In this case, for the year ended C0 September B0A0, both the opening and closing inventories would need to be measured at AVCO which would reduce reported profi t by $D00,000 (($B0 million – $AH million) – ($AE million – $AC·D million) – i.e. the movement in the values of the opening and closing inventories). The other effect of the change will be on the retained earnings brought forward at A October B00I. These will be restated (reduced) by the effect of the reduced inventory value at C0 September B00I i.e. $A·F million ($AE million – $AC·D million). This adjustment would be shown in the statement of changes in equity.
关系