问题 问答题

ABC会计师事务所接受甲股份有限公司(上市公司)的委托,对其20×8年半年度财务报表进行审阅,在实施了必要程序后,甲股份有限公司7月15日批准了20×8年半年度财务报表,注册会计师A和B出具的无保留意见审阅报告如下: 

审阅报告 

甲股份有限公司: 

我们审阅了后附的甲股份有限公司(以下简称甲公司)财务报表,包括20×8年12月31日的资产负债表,20×8年度的利润表、股东权益变动表。这些财务报表的编制是甲公司管理层的责任,我们的责任是在实施审计工作的基础上对这些财务报表出具审计报告。 

我们按照《中国注册会计师审阅准则第2101号——财务报表审阅》的规定执行了审阅业务。该准则要求我们计划和实施审阅工作,以对财务报表是否不存在重大错报获取有限保证,审阅主要限于询问公司有关人员程序。我们没有实施审计,因而不发表审计意见。 

根据我们的审阅,我们相信财务报表按照企业会计准则的规定编制,在所有重大方面公允反映被审阅单位的财务状况、经营成果和现金流量。 

                                                                                                                       ABC会计师事务所中国注册会计师:A(签名并盖章) 

                                                                                                                                       (盖章)中国注册会计师:B(签名并盖章) 

                                                                                                                                                              中国××市二○×八年七月十五日 

 

请指出上述审阅报告中存在的问题,并提出修改建议。

答案

参考答案:

(1)收件人不正确。应为“甲股份有限公司全体股东”。

(2)所审阅的财务报表表述不正确。应为“包括20×8年6月30日的资产负债表,20×8年半年度的利润表、股东权益变动表和现金流量表以及财务报表附注”。

(3)注册会计师的责任表述不正确。应为“我们的责任是在实施审阅工作的基础上对这些财务报表出具审阅报告”。

(4)所实施的审阅程序描述不完整。应为“审阅主要限于询问公司有关人员和对财务数据实施分析程序,提供的保证程度低于审计”。

(5)没有以消极方式提出结论。最后一段应为“根据我们的审阅,我们没有注意到任何事项使我们相信财务报表没有按照企业会计准则的规定编制,未能在所有重大方面公允反映被审阅单位的财务状况、经营成果和现金流量”。

多项选择题
单项选择题

As with any work of art, the merit of Chapman Kelley’s "Wildflower Works I" was in the eye of the beholder.

Kelley, who normally works with paint and canvas, considered the twin oval gardens planted in 1984 at Daley Bicentennial Park his most important piece.

The Chicago Park District considered it a patch of raggedy vegetation on public property that could be dug up and replanted at will like the flower boxes along Michigan Avenue. And that’s what happened in June 2004, when the district decided to create a more orderly vista for pedestrians crossing from Millennium Park via the new Frank Gehry footbridge.

If you’re looking for evidence that the rubes who run the Park District don’t know art when they see it, all you have to do is visit what’s left of Kelley’s masterpiece. The exuberant 1.5-acre tangle of leggy wildflowers is now confined to a tidy rectangle, restrained on all sides by a knee-high hedge and surrounded by a closely cropped lawn. White hydrangeas and pink shrub roses complete the look. We don’t know who’s responsible for the redesign, but we’ll bet the carpet in his home doesn’t go with the furniture.

Still, you’d think the Park District was within its rights to plow under the prairie. Wrong. Kelley just won at lawsuit in which he argued that the garden was public art and therefore protected by the federal Visual Artists Rights Act. Under that law, the district should have given him 90 days’notice that it intended to mess with his artwork instead of rushing headlong into the demolition, a la Meigs Field. That way Kelley could have mounted a legal challenge, or at least removed the plants.

Park District officials said they never considered the garden a work of art, even though it was installed by an established artist and not, say, Joe’s Sod and Landscaping. We can understand their confusion. Just recently, we figured out that the caged greenery directly south of Pritzker Pavilion is supposed to be an architectural statement and not a Christmas tree lot.

All that’s left is for the district to compensate Kelley for his loss. Whatever price the parties settle on, let’s hope the agreement also provides for the removal of the rest of "Wildflower Works I". If it wasn’t an eyesore before—and plenty of people thought it was—it sure is now.

The boldfaced word "rubes" in Paragraph 4 most likely means().

A. experts

B. laymen

C. fools

D. artists