NO.PZ2016012101000147
问题如下：
Zimt AG wrote down the value of its inventory in 2007 and reversed the write-down in 2008. Compared to the results the company would have reported if the write-down had never occurred, Zimt’s reported 2008:(assume the companies use a periodic inventory system)
选项：
A.
profit was overstated.
B.
cash flow from operations was overstated.
C.
year-end inventory balance was overstated.
解释：
A is correct.
The reversal of the write-down shifted cost of sales from 2008 to 2007. The 2007 cost of sales was higher because of the write-down, and the 2008 cost of sales was lower because of the reversal of the write-down. As a result, the reported 2008 profits were overstated. Inventory balance in 2008 is the same because the write-down and reversal cancel each other out. Cash flow from operations is not affected by the non-cash write-down, but the higher profits in 2008 likely resulted in higher taxes and thus lower cash flow from operations.
解析：题目问相比假设2007年不发生存货跌价（那么2008年就没有回转了），真实情况中（发生了跌价和回转）的2008年财报数字会怎么样？
相比没发生什么都没发生的情形，实际的2008年的COGS更低，因此NI更高，所以profit高估了，选项A正确。
跌价和回转是否会影响到应税所得，取决于所得税法是否承认计提存货跌价准备，一般来说税务局不承认存货跌价准备，因此存货跌价和回转不影响应税所得，不影响现金流。但各国所得税法不尽相同，如果税务局承认存货跌价，则2008年利润高的情况下交税多，CFO就少，无论怎么判断都不是overstated，选项B错误。
真实情况是发生了存货跌价，但是又转回了，存货价值先降低，然后又增加，最后的存货价值与没发生跌价&回转的情况是相同的，所两种情况下，2008年存货的价值是相等的，不存在高估或低估的情况，选项C错误。
被答案的解释绕晕了。这样理解对不对？题目其实只问了write-down（减值）发生的情况下，与当初减值不发生相比会有什么不一样。思路是减值发生的话COGS增加，NI减少，所以profit少，这样profit就比不减值的情况下少了很多，也就会被undervalued。为什么跟A选项结论相反呢？哪里理解错了呢
