Professional and Legal Responsibilities Flashcards
- A client suing a CPA for negligent preparation of a tax return in a state court must prove each of the following factors except
a. Breach of duty of care.
b. Proximate cause.
c. Reliance.
d. Injury.
c. Reliance.
Intentional torts 고의적인 불법행위 Negligence 과실에 의한 불법 Strict liability 무과실 책임 1) Duty 2) breach of duty 3) causations 인과관계 4) Damages 손해
- Which of the following penalties is usually imposed against an accountant who, in the course of preparing a tax return, breaches common law contract duties owed to a client?
a. Specific performance.
b. Punitive damages.
c. Money damages.
d. Rescission
c. Money damages.
d. Rescission.취소
- Under the common law, which of the following statements is generally true regarding the liability of a CPA who negligently prepares a client’s tax return?
a. The CPA is liable only to those third parties who are in privity of contract with the CPA.
b. The CPA is liable only to the client.
c. The CPA is liable to anyone in a class of third parties who the CPA knows will rely on the opinion.
d. The CPA is liable to all possible foreseeable users of the CPA’s opinion.
c. The CPA is liable to anyone in a class of third parties who the CPA knows will rely on the opinion.
합리적인 예상가능 범위
all 아님
- Which of the following statements, if any, are true regarding the state law elements that must be proven to support a finding of constructive fraud against a CPA in the preparation of a tax return?
I. The plaintiff has justifiably relied on the CPA’s misrepresentation.
II. The CPA has acted in a grossly negligent manner.
a. I only.
b. II only.
c. Both I and II.
d. Neither I nor II.
c. Both I and II.
constructive fraud
합리적 의제
- When CPAs fail in their duty to carry out their contracts to prepare tax returns, common law liability to clients may be based on
Breach of Contract Strict Liability
a. Yes Yes
b. Yes No
c. No No
d. No Yes
b. Yes No
Strict Liability
동물로 인한
고도로 위험한 활동
제조물 책임
결과에 대한 책임
- Ford & Co., CPAs, prepared Owens Corp.’s tax returns. Relying on these tax returns, Century Bank lent Owens $750,000. Ford was unaware that Century would receive a copy of the tax returns or that Owens would use them to obtain a loan. Owens defaulted on the loan. To succeed in a common law fraud action against Ford, Century must prove, in addition to other elements, that Century was
a. Free from contributory negligence.
b. In privity of contract with Ford.
c. Justified in relying on the tax returns.
d. In privity of contract with Owens.
c. Justified in relying on the tax returns.
합리적 의제
contributory negligence.
기여 과실, 원고에게 잘못
인정되지 않음
직접적 관계는 상관 없다
In privity of contract
- If a shareholder sues a CPA in state court for nonstatutory fraud based on false information contained in a tax return prepared by the CPA, which of the following, if present, would be the CPA’s best defense?
a. The shareholder lacks privity to sue.
b. The false information is immaterial.
c. The CPA did not financially benefit from the alleged fraud.
d. The contributory negligence of the client releases the CPA from liability.
b. The false information is immaterial.
7. (b) The tort of intentional misrepresentation (fraud, deceit) consists of a material misrepresentation made with scienter and an intent to induce reliance. The misstatement also must have proximately caused damage to a plaintiff who justifiably relied upon it. Scienter exists when the defendant makes a false representation with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth. The CPA’s best defense would be that the false information is immaterial
The contributory negligence
항변 사유로 쓸 수 없음
- Under state law, one of the elements necessary to hold a CPA liable to a client for preparing a tax return negligently is that the CPA
a. Acted with scienter or guilty knowledge.
b. Was a fiduciary of the client.
c. Failed to exercise due care.
d. Executed an engagement letter.
c. Failed to exercise due care.
고의 아님
신의 의무 관계 없음
- Which of the following is the best defense a CPA firm can assert in a suit for common law fraud resulting from preparation of a tax return?
a. Contributory negligence on the part of the client.
b. A disclaimer contained in the engagement letter.
c. Lack of privity.
d. Lack of scienter.
- (d) Fraud consists of a material misrepresentation made with scienter and an intent to induce reliance. The misrepresentation also must have caused damage to a defendant who reasonably relied upon it. Scienter exists when the defendant makes a false representation with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth. The CPA firm’s best defense is that the plaintiff failed to prove an element of the fraud claim, i.e., scienter.
알지 못함
- A CPA firm acts with scienter in all the following circumstances except when the firm
a. Intentionally disregards the truth.
b. Has actual knowledge of fraud.
c. Negligently performs a professional service.
d. Intends to gain monetarily by concealing fraud.
(c) Fraud consists of a material misrepresentation made with scienter and an intent to induce reliance. The misstatement also must have caused damage to a defendant who reasonably relied upon it. Scienter exists when the defendant makes a false representation with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth. Negligence, however, requires no wrongful intent
- Which one of the following, if present, would support a finding of constructive common law fraud on the part of a CPA?
a. Privity of contract.
b. Intent to deceive.
c. Reckless disregard.
d. Ordinary negligence.
c. Reckless disregard.
미필적 고의
Constructive common law fraud
- Under the common law, which of the following defenses, if used by a CPA, would best avoid liability in an action for negligence brought by a client?
a. The client was contributorily negligent.
b. The client was comparatively negligent.
c. The accuracy of the CPA’s work was not guaranteed.
d. The CPA’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the client’s losses.
d. The CPA’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the client’s losses.
defense로 쓸 수 없다
contributorily negligent 비례과실
comparatively negligent. 비율로 나눔
CPA 정확성 담보 못 함
- Thorp, CPA, was engaged to prepare tax returns and provide other tax services to Ivor Co. During the engagement, Thorp discovered that Ivor was selling worthless mortgages to investors. Ivor was indicted and Thorp was subpoenaed to testify at the criminal trial. Ivor claimed accountant-client privilege to prevent Thorp from testifying. Which of the following statements is true regarding Ivor’s claim?
a. Ivor can claim an accountant-client privilege only in states that have enacted a statute creating such a privilege.
b. Ivor can claim an accountant-client privilege only in federal courts.
c. The accountant-client privilege can be claimed only in civil suits.
d. The accountant-client privilege can be claimed only to limit testimony to audit subject matter.
a. Ivor can claim an accountant-client privilege only in states that have enacted a statute creating such a privilege.
accountant-client privilege
only in states
CPA
면책 특권, 몇몇 주에서만 인정
