Answer:
The CPA rebuts the allegations
Explanation:
The Securities Act of 1933 requires that investors receive financial and other significant information regarding any and all securities being sold publicly and prohibits deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities. Therefore, since there was material misstatement or omission in the financial statements, the only chance the CPA has is if they rebut the allegations. Meaning that they provide actual evidence, such as physical statements or witnesses that contradict or nullify the evidence that is being presented against them regarding the material misstatement or omission
Answer:
Option A is the correct approach.
Explanation:
- This is indeed a connection to compulsory tax and government expense stabilizers which weren't at the discretion including its government. Throughout the event of a recession, expenses are cut, rising discretionary income to something like the extent that the economic depression is pacified.
- Unemployment insurance, as well as other social programs, are consequently expanded without the clear intervention of the government
The other options offered are also not relevant to the scenario presented. So, the solution above is the right one.
Increase and increase. If it’s wrong please let me know!
Answer:
Here's ur answer
Explanation:
option ( a ) Above // Below
If it's useful mark me as brainlist
Answer:
C. Stated qualifications of the entity's accounting personnel
Explanation:
According to my research of the steps that are usually taken when compiling the financial statements of a non-issuer, it can be said that the accountant should know the stated qualifications of the entity's accounting personnel. This is because they should know what the qualification are of the accountant that initially made all the financial statements to see if they actually knew what they were doing.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
