阿摩線上測驗 登入

最新科目

最新試卷

最新試題

20 丙公司自成立以來,存貨成本公式一直採用加權平均法。然而,公司決議自 X5 年初開始, 將存貨的成本公式更改為先進先出法。根據財務部門的盤點與歷史資料,在這兩種不同方法下,X4 年與 X5 年的期末存貨金額如下:已知丙公司所適用的所得稅率為 20%。試問:丙公司在 X5 年初進行會計處理時,針對此項改變,應如何認列會計政策變動累積影響數?(A)借記追溯適用及追溯重編影響數$24,000 (B)貸記追溯適用及追溯重編影響數$24,000(C)借記追溯適用及追溯重編影響數$20,000 (D)貸記追溯適用及追溯重編影響數$20,000

19 甲公司在進行 X3 年度期末結帳作業之前,發現在過去三年間,連續發生了兩項帳務處理上 的疏漏。首先是公司連續三年都忘記在年底將尚未支付的「應付薪資」入帳,X1 年底漏列了$60,000,X2 年底漏列了$40,000,而 X3 年底則漏列了$80,000。其次是倉儲部門的期末存貨盤點錯誤,X1 年底的期末存貨被少計了$30,000;X2 年底的期末存貨則被多計了$50,000;X3年底的盤點中,存貨金額正確無誤。若不考慮所得稅的影響,下列有關對甲公司 X1 年、X2年及 X3 年度淨利與保留盈餘的影響之敘述,何者錯誤?(A) X1 年淨利高估$30,000 (B) X2 年淨利高估$60,000(C) X2 年底保留盈餘高估$60,000 (D) X3 年底保留盈餘高估$80,000

18 甲公司於 X2 年度以現金$75,000,出售了一台成本為$100,000、且出售時帳面金額為$60,000 的機器設備。根據甲公司的資產負債表紀錄,在 X1 年底時,帳上機器設備總額為$900,000、累計折舊總額為$200,000;而到了 X2 年底,機器設備總額已因現金增購增加至$1,050,000,累計折舊總額則為$280,000。下列有關甲公司 X2 年度現金流量表(間接法)中相關資訊,何者錯誤?(A)出售機器利益$15,000,列為本期稅前淨利減項(B)折舊費用$120,000,列本期稅前淨利減項(C)於投資活動中,列報購買機器設備之現金流出$250,000(D)於投資活動中,列報出售固定資產現金流入$75,000

最新申論題

最新課程

最新主題筆記

最新討論

50.69歲個案沒有中風及心血管疾病之病史,但近一年來愈來愈不喜歡和人說話,因此至神經內科就診。電腦斷層結果顯示,個案雙側額葉萎縮且左側更明顯。語言治療師評估,發現個案說話費力、 電報語,對於句法的表達和理解皆有相當程度的困難,不過單詞及句子的聽理解接近正常。依據上 述情形,個案是下列何種失語症類型? (A)Broca's aphasia(B)non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia(C)semantic variant primary progressive aphasia(D)logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia

25. 關於行政處分之敘述,下列何者正確? (A)行政機關就先決問題之鑑定結果,為行政處分 (B)行政機關就當事人請求之事項,未為具體之准駁,但由其理由之說明如已足認有准駁之表示,為行政處分 (C)行政機關就當事人所陳述之疑義,發函解釋法律規定之意旨,為行政處分 (D)行政機關就義務人公法上金錢給付義務不履行所為之書面催告,為行政處分

1 為什麼在現實生活中,生產可能曲線(PPC)通常呈現「凹向原點」(向外凸出)的形狀? (A)機會成本遞減 (B)機會成本遞增 (C)邊際效用遞減 (D)邊際效用遞增

44. (A) originates from (B) pours into (C) fluctuates among (D) appears in

45. (A) legislators (B) instructors (C) conductors (D) manufacturers 以下是試卷內容的題目與選項: 請依下文回答第46題至第50題 Denver's public schools' three-year plunge from one of the nation's most carefully planned and promising examples of public-education transformation into a district led by a school board in disarray has multiple causes, and there's plenty of blame to spread around. Ultimately, however, it is the result of a concerted effort over more than a decade by organized and committed activists, local and national, who have opposed changing the governance and operation of school districts in any significant way. The politics of public education in Denver have grown increasingly in school systems across the country. What distinguishes the conflict over reform in Denver is how unrelated it is to student outcomes. While Denver's reforms have been far from perfect, they merit the national attention they've drawn. A growing body of evidence makes clear that outcomes for students in the city slowly yet significantly improved, including for students the district has historically failed to serve well. Yet as soon as Denver Public Schools took its initial steps toward reform less than two decades ago, an active opposition campaign arose, aimed not at moderating or improving the reforms, but at destroying them. In 2019, the election of three new anti-reform members to the Denver Board of Education flipped the board majority to that camp. Since the educational reform was launched in 2005, Denver's families and educators have embraced choice. The broad popularity of choice in Denver makes dismantling reform politically fraught for the board and its allies. In fact, the board has faced strong pushback from some parents and educators and has had to confront the complex reality of governing a district where choice, autonomy, and a focus on outcomes are now woven into the fabric of public education. But the union-supported board majority was determined to push ahead, and that meant cleaninghouse at the top. In fall 2020, Superintendent Susana Cordova resigned after less than two years on the job. Cordova is a Denver native and Denver Public Schools graduate who had spent most of her professional career working for the district. Cordova never got a chance to enact her own agenda. First, a teacher strike weakened her just weeks into her tenure. Next, the new board gave her no room to enact changes. Finally, softening the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic became the district's sole focus. Now that the pandemic's disruption is receding, the board appears poised to renew its efforts to roll back reform. It has a good chance of succeeding, because in November 2021, all four of the anti-reform candidates won, giving their side unanimous control.