美达公司为增值税一般纳税企业，适用的增值税税率为17%。以人民币作为记账本位币，对外币业务采用业务发生时的市场汇率折算，按季计算汇兑损益，按季计提借款利息，按季计算借款费用资本化的金额(每季按90天计算，每月按30天计算)。原材料采用实际成本进行日常核算。
2002年第一季度甲公司发生如下业务和事项：
(1)为建造甲生产线，2002年1月1日从银行借人20000万美元，借入款项已以外币存入银行，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.22元人民币。该借款的期限为2年，年利率为8%，按单利计算，到期一次还本付息。
(2)甲生产线的建造采用部分外包方式，工程于2002年1月1日正式动工。1月1日以外币存款支付甲生产线建造进度款1000万美元。
(3)1月1日，自国外购入甲生产线所需待安装设备，支付设备价款500万美元。
(4)1月20日，将30万美元向银行兑换人民币，兑换取得的人民币已存入银行。当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.3元人民币，当日银行买入价为1美元＝8.23元人民币。
(5)2月6日，从国外购入生产用原材料500万美元。为购进该原材料支付进口关税 250万元人民币，进口增值税400万元人民币。进口原材料发生的进口关税和增值税已以人民币银行存款支付；进口原材料已验收入库，外币货款尚未支付。当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.25元人民币。
(6)3月1日，以外币存款支付甲生产线建造进度款2400万美元，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.26元人民币。
(7)3月2日，收到甲外商第一次外币出资1000万美元，款项已存入银行。当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.28元人民币，投资合同中未约定折算汇率。
(8)3月10日，收到甲外商第二次外币出资2000万美元，款项已存入银行。当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.25元人民币，投资合同中未约定折算汇率。
(9)3月20日，将本公司生产的一批产品销往国外，该批产品合同销售价格为600万美元，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.24元人民币，货款尚未收到。假定不考虑相关税费。
(10)3月25日，按照与银行的借款协议，支付于1月1日借入的外币专门借款有关的借款手续费计2400万元人民币(该数额对美达公司具有重要性)。
(11)3月25日，收到2001年12月发生的外币应收账款300万美元，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.3元人民币。
(12)3月31日，为建造美达生产线，聘请国外企业技术人员发生工资费用计300万美元，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.32元人民币，款项尚未支付。
2002年第二季度甲公司发生如下业务和事项：
(1)4月15日，以外币存款支付第一季度发生的应付国外企业技术人员的工资费用300万美元。当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.23元人民币。
(2)6月1日，以外币存款支付甲生产线建造进度款2000万美元，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.24元人民币。
(3)6月30日的市场汇率1美元＝8.25元人民币。
2002年第三季度美达公司发生如下业务和事项：
(1)7月1日，因工程所需特种材料没有得到及时供应，甲生产线建造工程被迫停工。至9月30日仍未恢复建设。
(2)除外币专门借款利息外，该季度未发生其他外币业务。
(3)9月30日的市场汇率为1美元＝8.26元人民币。
2002年第四季度美达公司发生如下业务和事项：
(1)10月15日，甲生产线建造工程恢复建设。
(2)11月1日，以外币存款支付甲生产线建造进度款3000万美元，当日市场汇率为1美元＝8.25元人民币。
(3)12月31日的市场汇率为1美元＝8.28元人民币。
其他相关资料：
(1)上述用于甲生产线购建的外币支出均以外币专门借款支付。
(2)甲生产线的实体建造工程(包括安装)于2002年12月31日全部完成且试运行正常。该生产线于2003年1月15日办理竣工决算，2003年2月1日正式投入使用。
(3)美达公司有关外币账户2001年12月31日的期末余额如下：

On Apr. 27, the Dean of Duke’s business school had the unfortunate task of announcing that nearly 10% of the Class of 2008 had been caught cheating on a take-home final exam. The scandal, which has cast yet another pall over the leafy, Gothic campus, is already going down as the biggest episode of alleged student deception in the business school’s history.
Almost immediately, the questions started swirling. The accused MBAs were, on average, 29 years old. They were the cut-and-paste generation, the champions of Linux. Before going to the business school, they worked in corporations for an average of six years. They did so at a time when their bosses were trumpeting the brave new world of open source, where one’s ability to aggregate (or rip off) other people’s intellectual property was touted as a crucial competitive advantage.
It’s easy to imagine the explanations these MBAs, who are mulling an appeal, might come up with. Teaming up on a take-home exam: That’s not academic fraud, it’s postmodern learning, wiki style. Text-messaging exam answers or downloading essays onto iPods: That’s simply a wise use of technology. One can understand the confusion. This is a generation that came of age nabbing music off Napster and watching bootlegged Hollywood blockbusters in their dorm rooms. "What do you mean " you can almost hear them saying. "We’re not supposed to share "
That’s not to say that university administrators should ignore unethical behavior, if it in fact occurred. But in this wired world, maybe the very notion of what constitutes cheating has to be reevaluated. The scandal at Duke points to how much the world has changed, and how academia and corporations are confused about it all, sending split messages.
We’re told it’s all about teamwork and shared information. But then we’re graded and ranked as individuals. We assess everybody as single entities. But then we plop them into an interdependent world and tell them their success hinges on creative collaboration.
The new culture of shared information is vastly different from the old, where hoarding information was power. But professors-and bosses, for that matter-need to be able to test individual ability. For all the talk about workforce teamwork, there are plenty of times when a person is on his or her own, arguing a case, preparing a profit and loss statement, or writing a research report.
Still, many believe that a rethinking of the assessment process is in store. The Stanford University Design School, for example, is so collaborative that "it would be impossible to cheat," says D-school professor Robert I. Sutton. "If you found somebody to help you write an exam, in our view that’s a sign of an inventive person who gets stuff done. If you found someone to do work for free who was committed to open source, we’d say, ’Wow, that was smart. ’ One group of students got the police to help them with a school project to build a roundabout where there were a lot of bike accidents. Is that cheating "
That’s food for thought at a time when learning is becoming more and more of a social process embedded in a larger network. This is in no way a pass on those who consciously break the rules. With countries aping American business practices, a backlash against an ethically rudderless culture can’t happen soon enough. But the saga at Duke raises an interesting question. In the age of Twitter, a social network that keeps users in constant streaming contact with one another, what is cheating

Why does the author cite the example of Stanford University Design School