The Chen Yaonan administration lawsuit

(first) the word

The presiding judge, judge:

Commissioned by the Shanghai law firm Li Guangli to accept Chen Yaonan, appointed by the Pang Shaoqun lawyers as agents to participate in the litigation activities. We make the following agents:

One, on the case involving the audit report will be payable to the long-term payables problem

According to the "enterprise accounting system" provisions of article thirty-sixth, accounts payable belongs to the current liabilities, refers to a year or an operating cycle longer than a year of debt. Specified in the first paragraph of article thirty-seventh, long term liabilities refer to the repayment period in a year or an operating cycle longer than a year of debt, including long-term loans payable, bonds payable, long-term payables. From the above provisions is not difficult to see, the case involved a payable, long-term payables is actually a nature of the problem, but the repayment period. Then, during the operation, the market main body can decide claims and debts according to their business needs time, this right is a private right, follow the "without law provisions are available for" principle. As a certified public accountant, the plaintiff in the audit of enterprises, in accordance with the enterprise's financial situation, to not violate accounting provisions of the act were not adjusted, is consistent with the certified public accountant behavior standards, the defendant does not give evidence that the behavior is illegal.

Two, about the specific administrative act refers to the paid and unpaid income tax to capital accumulation fund

The local government investment policies varied, preferential tax is a relatively common, and local government regulations often incentives and state there will be some more or less do not coincide, in reality there has never been this preferential measures around the formation of government documents, but this situation is objective existence, should belong to the scope of judicial notice the. According to the "independent auditing standards" China CPA No. seventh eighteenth second item of the first paragraph, "restricted due to the scope of the audit, unable to obtain audit evidence sufficient and appropriate, significant, but not for issuing audit reports can not be said" the views of the audit report issued by the plaintiff, reserved opinions, in full compliance with the report. The provisions of the second paragraph of this article and article twenty-one. The written decision on administrative penalty, the defendant the plaintiff that audit report in violation of the "specific Independent Auditing Standard No. fifth -- the audit evidence" fourteenth, "the provisions on certified public accountants" article twentieth, article twenty-first. In fact, the provisions of fourteenth audit evidence is the CPA shall obtain evidence in the working papers shall be clear, complete records, and "registered accountant law" article twentieth, article twenty-first does not require the plaintiff's conduct is illegal.

Three, with regard to the case of the specific administrative act of erroneous application of the law

In this case the defendant according to "accounting law of the people's Republic of China" thirty-ninth to the plaintiff for punishment, but this stipulation is in violation of the law twentieth, twenty-first as the premise. In court, the defendant did not prove that the acts in violation of article twentieth, article twenty-first, then there is no doubt that this case does not exist for the thirty-ninth conditions. Step back and say, even if the plaintiff in violation of article twentieth and article twenty-first, only thirty-ninth of the second paragraph of "warning" punishment, because the application practice suspension and revocation of the certificate of practicing punishment, should be the administrative relative person's behavior to the "serious" degree. But in this case the defendant in administrative behavior during the trial, the plaintiff did not cite the behavior belongs to the "serious" evidence, only vaguely said "serious" belongs to the scope of the discretion of administrative organs. The implication, actually does not have enough that the plaintiff behavior "serious" evidence. So obviously, the defendant is "serious" punishment standard, beyond the scope of legal provisions, it is erroneous application of the law.

In addition, from the rule of experience to judge, the accused according to the specific administrative act to make doping personal factors, it is not lawful administrative purposes; the same problem does not have the same treatment, that is not fair. Behavior of the administrative objective illegal, in accordance with the law shall be invalid administrative act.

To sum up, in this case the defendant according to the specific administrative acts of the fact that the error, error in the application of the law, the evidence is not sufficient, and the purpose of illegal administrative. Therefore, request the people's court shall be revoked.

To Hangzhou Xihu District people's court

                               Shanghai Li Guangli law firm

                                    Pang Shaoqun lawyer