Which of the following might be detected by an auditor's review of the entity's sales cutoff?
A. Excessive goods returned for credit.
B. Lapping of year-end accounts receivable.
C. Unrecorded sales discounts.
D. Overstated sales for the year.
Answer: D
You might also like to view...
Helen is a promoter who, prior to forming Bayne Corp., contracted to purchase tile-manufacturing machinery from Owen Machinery Inc. The contract was negotiated and entered into in the name of Bayne Corp. Subsequently, a certificate of incorporation was issued to Bayne Corp. Which of the following statements is true of this scenario?
A. Helen would be liable for the contract with Owen Machinery Inc. B. If the board of directors of Bayne Corp. issues a suitable resolution, Helen would be relieved from all liability for the contract with Owen Machinery Inc. C. Since Bayne Corp. was not in existence at the time the contract was negotiated, the contract is void. D. Only Bayne Corp. is liable for the contract with Owen Machinery Inc. as it received its certificate of incorporation.
The most effective means of presenting standard factory overhead cost variance data is through a factory overhead cost budget
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Renunciation is a statutory right of a surviving spouse to give up her statutory share in the estate
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
In CASE 5.2 EBC I, Inc v. Goldman, Sachs & Co, (2005) the plaintiffs claimed that Goldman Sachs breached a fiduciary duty in acting as an underwriter and in providing advice to eToys, the plaintiff's predecessor, in regard to an initial public offering of stock. How did the court rule and why?
a. The court dismissed the case on the basis that Goldman Sachs as an underwriter could not be considered a fiduciary based on its role in the transactions at issue. b. The court refused to order a dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and found that Goldman Sachs' failure to disclose a material conflict of interest established a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. c. The court dismissed the case because Goldman Sachs had every right to make a profit out of the transaction so long as no actual misrepresentations were made to the plaintiffs. d. The court refused to order a dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and found that Goldman Sachs' could be held liable based on material misrepresentations made to the plaintiffs regarding the value of the stock involved in the initial public offering.