3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Lamont Co. The company’s principal acti

Question

3 You are the manager responsible for the audit of Lamont Co. The company’s principal activity is wholesaling frozen

fish. The draft consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 show revenue of $67·0 million

(2006 – $62·3 million), profit before taxation of $11·9 million (2006 – $14·2 million) and total assets of

$48·0 million (2006 – $36·4 million).

The following issues arising during the final audit have been noted on a schedule of points for your attention:

(a) In early 2007 a chemical leakage from refrigeration units owned by Lamont caused contamination of some of its

property. Lamont has incurred $0·3 million in clean up costs, $0·6 million in modernisation of the units to

prevent future leakage and a $30,000 fine to a regulatory agency. Apart from the fine, which has been expensed,

these costs have been capitalised as improvements. (7 marks)

Required:

For each of the above issues:

(i) comment on the matters that you should consider; and

(ii) state the audit evidence that you should expect to find,

in undertaking your review of the audit working papers and financial statements of Lamont Co for the year ended

31 March 2007.

NOTE: The mark allocation is shown against each of the three issues.

Answer 1

正确答案：
3 LAMONT CO
(a) Chemical leakage
(i) Matters
■ $30,000 fine is very immaterial (just 1/4% profit before tax). This is revenue expenditure and it is correct that it
has been expensed to the income statement.
■ $0·3 million represents 0·6% total assets and 2·5% profit before tax and is not material on its own. $0·6 million
represents 1·2% total assets and 5% profit before tax and is therefore material to the financial statements.
■ The $0·3 million clean-up costs should not have been capitalised as the condition of the property is not improved
as compared with its condition before the leakage occurred. Although not material in isolation this amount should
be adjusted for and expensed, thereby reducing the aggregate of uncorrected misstatements.
■ It may be correct that $0·6 million incurred in modernising the refrigeration units should be capitalised as a major
overhaul (IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment). However, any parts scrapped as a result of the modernisation
should be treated as disposals (i.e. written off to the income statement).
■ The carrying amount of the refrigeration units at 31 March 2007, including the $0·6 million for modernisation,
should not exceed recoverable amount (i.e. the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell). If it does,
an allowance for the impairment loss arising must be recognised in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ A breakdown/analysis of costs incurred on the clean-up and modernisation amounting to $0·3 million and
$0·6 million respectively.
■ Agreement of largest amounts to invoices from suppliers/consultants/sub-contractors, etc and settlement thereof
traced from the cash book to the bank statement.
■ Physical inspection of the refrigeration units to confirm their modernisation and that they are in working order. (Do
they contain frozen fish?)
■ Sample of components selected from the non-current asset register traced to the refrigeration units and inspected
to ensure continuing existence.
■ $30,000 penalty notice from the regulatory agency and corresponding cash book payment/payment per the bank
statement.
■ Written management representation that there are no further penalties that should be provided for or disclosed other
than the $30,000 that has been accounted for.