Questões por banca

Questões de Língua Inglesa da FCC

Pratique questões de Língua Inglesa da FCC e filtre por assunto, tópico, órgão, cargo e ano.

Estude com questões da FCC

Consulte o banco público da QuestLab com questões da FCC. Use os filtros abaixo para localizar questões por disciplina, assunto, órgão, cargo, ano e modalidade.

Ver DNA da FCC

Questões da FCC por disciplina

212 disciplinas disponíveis. Clique para visualizar todas.

Acesse diretamente as disciplinas disponíveis nesta banca. As quantidades abaixo consideram as questões ativas do banco QuestLab.

Ver todas da FCC

Encontre as questões que procura

Palavra-chave

Disciplina

Assunto

Tópico

Banca

Órgão

Ano

Cargo

Modalidade

Limpar filtros

59 questões encontradas

ID 181359 Língua Inglesa Sinônimos | Synonymous FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Para responder às questões de números 76 a 78, baseie-se no texto seguinte.

Challenges in Auditing: Overcoming Barriers to Financial Accuracy and Compliance
By accountancy / December 7, 2024

Auditing is essential for ensuring financial integrity, regulatory compliance, and fraud detection in organizations. However, the audit process faces numerous challenges that can hinder its effectiveness, including evolving regulations, financial complexities, technological disruptions, and fraud risks. These challenges impact the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of audit outcomes. This article explores some challenges in auditing and how organizations and auditors can address them.
As global economies grow more interconnected and digitalized, auditors are operating in an increasingly complex environment. According to the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the top challenges facing modern auditors include adapting to evolving financial technologies, maintaining independence amid client pressures, and addressing regulatory diversity across jurisdictions. Understanding these barriers is crucial for enhancing audit quality and sustaining investor confidence.
1 . Evolving Accounting Standards and Regulations
Audit teams often face difficulties keeping pace with ongoing updates from regulatory bodies like the International Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). These revisions, while aimed at improving transparency, require significant retraining, policy adjustments, and system reconfiguration within firms. Noncompliance can result in audit deficiencies or sanctions from oversight bodies such as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOEB).
2 . Compliance with Multiple Jurisdictions
Multinational corporations present complex challenges due to varying legal Frameworks, tax systems, and currency translations. Auditors must coordinate across borders. often collaborating with local affiliates to ensure consistent audit quality under different reporting systems.
3 . Regulatory Investigations and Legal Risks
- Failure to detect fraud or misstatements can lead to legal actions against auditors.
- Auditors may face reputational damage if their reports are later found inaccurate.
- Example : An audit firm facing legal action for failing to uncover fraudulent revenue reporting.
Recent corporate scandals — such as the collapses of Enron, Wirecard, and Carillion — have heightened scrutiny on auditors. Regulatory agencies now demand greater accountability, transparency, and documentation. This has increased professional liability and insurance costs for audit firms.
4 . Fraud Risks and Ethical Challenges
- Companies may manipulate financial reports to inflate profits or hide losses.
- Auditors must apply forensic techniques to detect fraud effectively.
- Example : An organization overstating revenue to attract investors.
Fraudulent reporting remains a persistent global issue. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), organizations lose an estimated 5% of annual revenue to fraud. This underscores the importance of professional skepticism and data-driven audit analytics in uncovering deceptive practices.
5 . Auditor Independence and Conflict of Interest
- Auditors may face pressure from management to overlook financial irregularities.
- Close relationships with clients can compromise audit independence.
- Example : An auditor receiving incentives to provide an unqualified audit opinion despite financial misstatements. Maintaining independence is a cornerstone of audit ethics. The IFAC Code of Ethics emphasizes that even perceived conflicts of interest can erode trust. Audit rotation policies and separation of consulting services from audit work are key measures to preserve integrity.

(Disponivel em: https:Mauditingaccounting.comichallanges-in-auditing-overcoming-barriers-to-financial-aceuracy-and-compliance. Adaptado)

Um sinônimo para keeping pace with na sentença “ Audit teams often face difficulties keeping pace with ongoing updates from regulatory bodies ..." é

A keeping an eye on.

B keeping company with.

C keeping up with.

D keeping clear of.

E keeping in touch with.

ID 180988 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Considere o texto abaixo para responder às questões de números 65 a 68.

Big Techs

When tax bills are in the millions or even billions, some individuals will go to any lengths to avoid paying up

RS, HMRC, FTS or CRA: whatever you like to call him, there's no hiding from the taxman. No individual or institution is immune from the annual tax deadline, although many aim to reduce what they pay as much as possible through regulatory loopholes and profit redistribution schemes.

When that tips over into illegal territory, though, it becomes a major problem. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that over $600bn is lost every year due to tax avoidance, with the US, China and Japan named as the greatest culprits.

Multinational technology companies including Google, Apple and Amazon have been slapped with multiple allegations in recent years regarding non-payment of taxes in Europe. In 2016, Apple was ordered to pay $15.4bn in back taxes to Ireland after it was revealed that the company paid just one percent tax on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005 percent in 2014. That same year Google was accused of using two regulatory loopholes, nicknamed the 'double Irish', allowing it to pay just six percent corporation tax rather than the required 19.3 percent.

The Double Irish arrangement was a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) corporate tax avoidance tool used mainly by United States multinationals since the late 1980s to avoid corporate taxation on non-US profits. (The US was one of a small number of countries that did not use a "territorial" tax system, and taxed corporations on all profits, no matter whether the profit was made outside the US or not, in contrast to "territorial" tax systems which tax only profits made within that country.) It was the largest tax avoidance tool in history. By 2010, it was shielding US$100 billion annually in US multinational foreign profits from taxation, and was the main tool by which US multinationals built up untaxed offshore reserves of US$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018. Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish for a decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given until January 2020 to close them.

At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014), and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
- Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (LinkedIn), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax inversion of about US$ 300 billion of its intangible assets (mainly intellectual property) to Ireland.
(Adapted from https://lwmnmoridfinance.comíwealth-management'top-5-tax-scandals )

De acordo com o texto,

A a Microsoft recorria ao Double Irish desde 2017, sem o conhecimento das autoridades americanas.

B o esquema CAIA proporciona até o dobro da proteção fiscal do Single Malt na Irlanda.

C a lgperchaun economics affair proporcionou um crescimento real de 26,3% do PIB da Irlanda em 2015.

D a Apple transferiu US$300 milhões de seus ativos tangíveis para a Irlanda, contribuindo para o crescimento econômico daquele pais.

E os prejuízos causados pelas BEPS tornaram esses esquemas alvo de forte regulação global.

ID 180318 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Considere o texto abaixo para responder às questões de números 61 e 62.

Defining the Role of a Tax Auditor

The core function of a tax auditor is to examine financial records and supporting documentation against the figures reported on official returns, whether for individuals or corporations. This examination seeks to verify every line item, from gross receipts and reported income to specific deductions claimed for ordinary and necessary business expenses. A primary goal is to confirm that the taxpayer's stated liability aligns precisely with the relevant federal or state tax law.
The auditor works to identify discrepancies or misapplications of the law that may lead to an underpayment of taxes due. They scrutinize documentation that supports deductions, such as receipts for charitable depreciation claimed or substantiation for contributions. The auditor ultimately determines if the taxpayer owes additional tax, is due a refund, or if the return is accurate as filed.

(Adapted from https://legalclarity.org/what-is-a-tax-auditor-and-what-do-they-do/ )

O significado de supporting , conforme empregado no texto, é

A fiscal.

B exigida.

C fraudulenta.

D comprobatória.

E incompleta.

ID 180317 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Considere o texto abaixo para responder às questões de números 63 e 64.

Artificial Intelligence in Accounting and Auditing
Federica De Santis
27 October 2024

The labor-intensive and repetitive nature of auditing tasks, combined with strict compliance requirements, make auditing an ideal area for the integration of digital technologies like artificial intelligence (Al). Al offers significant potential for auditors, enabling them to accelerate auditing tasks, minimize human errors and bias, overcome sampling limitations, examine entire transaction populations, and lower audit costs. Nonetheless , similar to any innovation in professional practices, the adoption of Al in auditing poses unique challenges for both professionals and policymakers. These challenges mainly pertain to auditors' readiness for technological advancements, their willingness to adapt their approach to audit tasks, and the ethical considerations of utilizing Al in their work.
(Adapted from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-71371-2_9 )

Segundo o texto,

A o único empecilho de integrar a IA às atividades de auditoria é sua complexidade e longa curva de aprendizagem.

B os auditores aderiram prontamente à introdução da IA por proporcionar maior rapidez e acurácia a suas tarefas.

C a introdução de tecnologias digitais às tarefas de auditores fiscais tem a vantagem de acelerar seu desempenho, apesar de seu alto custo.

D a introdução da IA no campo da auditoria fiscal é desafiadora tanto para os auditores quanto para os legisladores.

E Os rigorosos requisitos de conformidade e a necessidade de minimizar vieses humanos restringem a integração de tecnologias digitais no campo da auditoria.

ID 180282 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Considere o texto abaixo para responder às questões de números 65 a 68.

Big Techs

When tax bills are in the millions or even billions, some individuals will go to any lengths to avoid paying up
RS, HMRC, FTS or CRA: whatever you like to call him, there's no hiding from the taxman. No individual or institution is immune from the annual tax deadline, although many aim to reduce what they pay as much as possible through regulatory loopholes and profit redistribution schemes.
When that tips over into illegal territory, though, it becomes a major problem. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that over $600bn is lost every year due to tax avoidance, with the US, China and Japan named as the greatest culprits.
Multinational technology companies including Google, Apple and Amazon have been slapped with multiple allegations in recent years regarding non-payment of taxes in Europe. In 2016, Apple was ordered to pay $15.4bn in back taxes to Ireland after it was revealed that the company paid just one percent tax on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005 percent in 2014. That same year Google was accused of using two regulatory loopholes, nicknamed the 'double Irish', allowing it to pay just six percent corporation tax rather than the required 19.3 percent.
The Double Irish arrangement was a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) corporate tax avoidance tool used mainly by United States multinationals since the late 1980s to avoid corporate taxation on non-US profits. (The US was one of a small number of countries that did not use a "territorial" tax system, and taxed corporations on all profits, no matter whether the profit was made outside the US or not, in contrast to "territorial" tax systems which tax only profits made within that country.) It was the largest tax avoidance tool in history. By 2010, it was shielding US$100 billion annually in US multinational foreign profits from taxation, and was the main tool by which US multinationals built up untaxed offshore reserves of US$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018.
Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish for a decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given until January 2020 to close them.
At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014), and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
- Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (LinkedIn), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax inversion of about US$ 300 billion of its intangible assets (mainly intellectual property) to Ireland.

(Adapted from https://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-management/top-5-tax-scandals)

Segundo o texto, a principal finalidade do Double Irish era

A substituir definitivamente todos os outros mecanismos BEPS utilizados na Irlanda, como o Single Malt e o CAIA.

B permitir que empresas dos EUA pagassem menos impostos sobre lucros obtidos exclusivamente dentro do território norte-americano.

C facilitar a transferência legal de sedes empresariais dos EUA para a Irlanda, com mudança real de operações.

D reduzir a tributação sobre lucros estrangeiros de multinacionais dos EUA, evitando a tributação global aplicada pelo sistema fiscal norte-americano.

E isentar empresas estrangeiras que atuavam nos EUA de qualquer forma de tributação corporativa.

ID 179939 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Considere o texto abaixo para responder às questões de números 65 a 68.

Big Techs

When tax bills are in the millions or even billions, some individuals will go to any lengths to avoid paying up
RS, HMRC, FTS or CRA: whatever you like to call him, there's no hiding from the taxman. No individual or institution is immune from the annual tax deadline, although many aim to reduce what they pay as much as possible through regulatory loopholes and profit redistribution schemes.
When that tips over into illegal territory, though, it becomes a major problem. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that over $600bn is lost every year due to tax avoidance, with the US, China and Japan named as the greatest culprits.
Multinational technology companies including Google, Apple and Amazon have been slapped with multiple allegations in recent years regarding non-payment of taxes in Europe. In 2016, Apple was ordered to pay $15.4bn in back taxes to Ireland after it was revealed that the company paid just one percent tax on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005 percent in 2014. That same year Google was accused of using two regulatory loopholes, nicknamed the 'double Irish', allowing it to pay just six percent corporation tax rather than the required 19.3 percent.
The Double Irish arrangement was a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) corporate tax avoidance tool used mainly by United States multinationals since the late 1980s to avoid corporate taxation on non-US profits. (The US was one of a small number of countries that did not use a "territorial" tax system, and taxed corporations on all profits, no matter whether the profit was made outside the US or not, in contrast to "territorial" tax systems which tax only profits made within that country.) It was the largest tax avoidance tool in history. By 2010, it was shielding US$100 billion annually in US multinational foreign profits from taxation, and was the main tool by which US multinationals built up untaxed offshore reserves of US$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018.
Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish for a decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given until January 2020 to close them.
At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014), and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
- Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (LinkedIn), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax inversion of about US$ 300 billion of its intangible assets (mainly intellectual property) to Ireland.

(Adapted from https://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-management/top-5-tax-scandals)

De acordo com o texto,

A a Irlanda foi a maior beneficiária dos esquemas de sonegação fiscal das multinacionais americanas quando o esquema Double Irish foi descoberto e essas empresas foram obrigadas a pagar ao país os impostos devidos desde 2003.

B o recurso ao Double Irish pelas multinacionais americanas chegou a evitar, de 1980 a 2010, o recolhimento de US$100 milhões de dólares ao ano em impostos sobre lucros no estrangeiro.

C as multinacionais americanas chegaram a acumular reservas offshore não tributadas de US$ 1 trilhão entre 2004 e 2018, sem o conhecimento do governo americano.

D o esquema do Double Irish foi denunciado e encerrado pela Comissão Europeia em outubro de 2014.

E as multinacionais Apple, Google, Facebook e Pfizer só deixaram de recorrer ao Double Irish em 2020, claramente contrariando uma decisão da Comissão Europeia.

ID 179775 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Segundo o texto, o sucesso de uma auditoria depende

A do conhecimento atualizado do auditor em relação às novas tecnologias de inteligência artificial.

B da capacidade do auditor de conhecer os padrões regulatórios das várias jurisdições em que a empresa atua.

C de o auditor ter certificações profissionais e uma formação acadêmica adequada.

D da forma como o auditor comunica não conformidades contábeis da empresa e de como sugere soluções ao seu cliente.

E de o auditor ser capaz de avaliar, de forma detalhada, todas as atividades e processos da empresa que geraram fraudes.

ID 179762 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

De acordo com o texto,

A um dos desafios enfrentados por auditores de empresas multinacionais é a falta de tradução atualizada de novas regulamentações internacionais.

B as novas demandas das agências reguladoras desagradaram às empresas de auditoria, pois exigem maior responsabilidade profissional.

C os auditores da Enron, Wirecard e Carillion foram responsabilizados legalmente por não terem reportado as fraudes contábeis das empresas.

D auditores que recebem incentivos da empresa para relevarem práticas fraudulentas devem ser imediatamente exonerados.

E uma das fraudes comuns é a empresa reportar lucros mais altos do que os reais para atrair investidores.

ID 179750 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

Atenção : Considere o texto abaixo para responder às questões de números 69 e 70.

Why Audits Fail: A Story of Missteps and Lessons Learned

24 January 2025

Let's look at three common reasons why audits fall apart and see what we can learn from them.

1. ___[subtítulo]___

Picture an auditor walking into a company with a checklist and a laptop, ready to make sense of the chaos. But instead of finding clarity, they're handed a series of false assumptions. Maybe management paints an overly rosy picture of their processes. Or worse, the evidence provided is incomplete or outright fabricated. Imagine the frustration of trying to solve a puzzle when pieces are deliberately hidden or swapped out.
Sometimes it's not malicious - management might not even realize their statements are misleading. But the result is the same: the auditor can't do their job, and critical issues go unnoticed.

2 . A Lack of Skilled Resources

Now imagine the audit team itself. Maybe they're new, overwhelmed, or simply don't have the expertise needed to navigate the complexities of this organization. Instead of spotting red flags, they miss them - or worse, don't even know where to look.
Auditing isn't easy. It takes specialized knowledge to dig into systems, spot gaps in controls, and interpret what the data is really saying. Without skilled resources, even the most thorough audit plan can fall apart.

3 . No Support from the Organization

Finally, imagine the company itself. The audit team asks for access to critical systems but gets stuck waiting for approval. Employees avoid answering questions because they're either too busy or worried about saying the wrong thing. The systems in place are outdated, making it impossible to track down reliable data. At this point, it's like the auditor is running a race with their shoelaces tied together.
Auditors can't succeed without support. They need access to systems, cooperation from employees, and tools that make their job easier - not harder. When the organization doesn't provide this support, even the most well-intentioned audit is doomed.

How to Avoid a Failed Audit

So, how can we change the ending to this story? It comes down to preparation and collaboration. Here are a few things every organization can do:
- Be Transparent: Don't hide problems. Audits are there to help, not punish.
- Invest in Skills: Train your audit team and give them the tools they need to succeed.
- Foster a Supportive Culture: Make sure employees see audits as opportunities for growth, not something to fear.

(Adapted from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-audits-fail-story-missteps-lessons-learned-morfa-itil-cobit-5-1rghe/)

Um subtítulo adequado para a primeira circunstância que pode impedir uma boa auditoria é

A The auditor failed to fabricate evidence

B The auditor was misled

C The auditor noticed critical issues

D The auditor spotted malicious data

E The auditor made false assumptions

ID 179741 Língua Inglesa Língua Inglesa - Compreensão e Interpretação de Texto FCC 2026

Texto associado

O texto afirma que

A o auditor tem a obrigação de informar qualquer discrepância entre a renda líquida declarada pelo contribuinte e os impostos recolhidos.

B uma das principais funções do auditor fiscal é examinar declarações de empresas relativas a sua receita bruta e suas deduções para despesas comerciais comuns e necessárias.

C o domínio total da legislação tributária estadual é condição sine qua non para a boa prática de um auditor fiscal.

D deduções relativas à depreciação de bens ou às contribuições para entidades beneficentes costumam ultrapassar o limite legal.

E o auditor é o último a determinar se a declaração do contribuinte está correta, se lhe cabe restituição ou se há multa a pagar.