Questões de Concurso Público SEFAZ-SP 2026 para Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1)
Foram encontradas 100 questões
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954843
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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 depreciation claimed or substantiation for charitable contributions. The auditor ultimately determines if the taxpayer owes additional tax, is duea refund, or if the return is accurate as filed.
(Adapted from https://egalclarity.org/what-is-a-tax-auditor-and-what-do-they-do/)
O texto afirma que
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954844
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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 depreciation claimed or substantiation for charitable contributions. The auditor ultimately determines if the taxpayer owes additional tax, is duea refund, or if the return is accurate as filed.
(Adapted from https://egalclarity.org/what-is-a-tax-auditor-and-what-do-they-do/)
O significado de supporting, conforme empregado no texto, é
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954845
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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)
Um sinônimo para Nonetheless, conforme empregado no texto, é
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954846
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954847
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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 usea "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$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018.
Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish fora decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close
the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given
until January 2020 to close them.
At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014).
and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
-
Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (Linkedin), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun
economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred
intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later
revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax
inversion of about US$ 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,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954848
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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 usea "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$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018.
Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish fora decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close
the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given
until January 2020 to close them.
At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014).
and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
-
Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (Linkedin), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun
economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred
intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later
revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax
inversion of about US$ 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,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954849
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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 usea "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$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018.
Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish fora decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close
the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given
until January 2020 to close them.
At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014).
and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
-
Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (Linkedin), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun
economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred
intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later
revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax
inversion of about US$ 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
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954850
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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 usea "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$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018.
Despite US knowledge of the Double Irish fora decade, it was the European Commission that in October 2014 forced Ireland to close
the scheme, starting in January 2015. However, users of existing schemes, such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Pfizer, were given
until January 2020 to close them.
At the announcement of the closure, it was known that multinationals had replacement BEPS tools in Ireland, the Single Malt (2014).
and Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets (CAIA) (2009):
-
Single malt is almost identical to the Double Irish, and was identified with Microsoft (Linkedin), and Allergan in 2017;
- CAIA can provide up to twice the tax shield of Single Malt, or Double Irish, and was identified with Apple in the 2015 leprechaun
economics affair, i.e., a huge statistical distortion in Ireland's GDP caused by Apple's tax restructuring. The company transferred
intangible assets to its Irish subsidiary, which artificially inflated the country's GDP by more than 26.3% in a single year (later
revised to 24.6%), an absurd leap for a relatively small economy. This growth did not reflect real production, but rather Apple's tax
inversion of about US$ 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,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954851
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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. ALack 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 ure 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/)
Segundo o texto,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954852
Inglês
Texto associado
Atenção: Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.
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. ALack 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 ure 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
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954853
Administração Geral
Suponha que, ao realizar o diagnóstico do processo decisório praticado em determinada organização, a consultoria contratada
para tal finalidade tenha identificado um número maior de decisões classificadas como não programadas e um menor número de
decisões classificadas como programadas. De acordo com os conceitos aplicáveis, a consultoria deverá apontar
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954854
Administração Geral
Suponha que determinada organização, estruturada de acordo com o modelo divisional, esteja em um processo de reestruturação e cogite adotar o modelo matricial. Considerando as características próprias do referido modelo, a mudança cogitada
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954855
Gestão de Pessoas
Suponha que determinado gestor pretenda avaliar o desempenho de sua equipe utilizando ferramentas e metodologias
consagradas de avaliação de desempenho. Nesse contexto, pretende aplicar a Avaliação 360°, também denominada Avaliação
Circular, o que significa que
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954856
Gestão de Pessoas
Entre as teorias clássicas que buscam explicar o fenômeno da motivação, aplicadas no âmbito das instituições públicas e
privadas, a Teoria X e a Teoria Y, desenvolvidas por McGregor,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954857
Gestão de Pessoas
De acordo com o Modelo Situacional de liderança, desenvolvido por Paul Hersey e Kenneth Blanchard, a eficácia da liderança
depende, principalmente,
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954858
Gestão de Pessoas
As atividades da análise e da descrição de cargos são complementares dentro do escopo mais amplo da gestão de recursos
humanos, em especial nas etapas de recrutamento e seleção, sendo que
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954859
Análise de Balanços
A partir da análise de balanço e demonstrações financeiras de uma empresa, é possível realizar análises a respeito de aspectos
econômicos, financeiros e patrimoniais, inclusive com índices e fórmulas comumente utilizados para diferentes finalidades.
Nesse contexto, o Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) é utilizado como indicador
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954860
Gerência de Projetos
No que concerne à gestão de projetos, há, entre outros, dois métodos consagrados que são comumente utilizados pelas organizações: o Método do Caminho Crítico - Critical Path Method (CPM) e o Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT),
sendo que
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954861
Auditoria
O COSO (The Commitee of Sponsoring Organizations), criado em 1985, é uma entidade privada sem fins lucrativos e com
objetivo de aperfeiçoar a qualidade de relatórios financeiros, em especial quanto à ocorrência de fraudes. Com a obra de 2004
Enterprise Risk Management- Integrated Framework, o COSO realizou um trabalho voltado para o gerenciamento de riscos
corporativos e, nesse contexto, a representação gráfica então apresentada consiste
Ano: 2026
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2026 - SEFAZ-SP - Auditor Fiscal da Receita Estadual - AFRE - Gestão Tributária - Conhecimentos Gerais (P1) |
Q3954862
Contabilidade de Custos
Determinada empresa que possua grau elevado de alavancagem financeira e baixo grau de alavancagem operacional apresenta, como regra geral, as seguintes características:
I. a estrutura de capital contém uma parcela significativa de dívida com encargos financeiros fixos, de modo que pequenas variações no resultado operacional produzem grandes variações no lucro líquido e no retorno ao acionista.
II. a estrutura de custos operacionais é predominantemente variável, com baixa participação de custos fixos, de modo que variações na receita provocam variações relativamente pequenas no resultado operacional.
III. o retorno ao acionista tende a ser baixo, pois há uso intensivo de capital próprio (equity) e a relação entre custos e despesas operacionais apresenta tendência negativa e alta volatilidade.
IV. a estrutura de custos é composta quase que exclusivamente por custos fixos, permitindo poucos ganhos marginais, enquanto na estrutura de capital predomina o uso de instrumentos financeiros, como debêntures e derivativos.
Está correto o que se afirma APENAS em
I. a estrutura de capital contém uma parcela significativa de dívida com encargos financeiros fixos, de modo que pequenas variações no resultado operacional produzem grandes variações no lucro líquido e no retorno ao acionista.
II. a estrutura de custos operacionais é predominantemente variável, com baixa participação de custos fixos, de modo que variações na receita provocam variações relativamente pequenas no resultado operacional.
III. o retorno ao acionista tende a ser baixo, pois há uso intensivo de capital próprio (equity) e a relação entre custos e despesas operacionais apresenta tendência negativa e alta volatilidade.
IV. a estrutura de custos é composta quase que exclusivamente por custos fixos, permitindo poucos ganhos marginais, enquanto na estrutura de capital predomina o uso de instrumentos financeiros, como debêntures e derivativos.
Está correto o que se afirma APENAS em
Conheça nossos planos