财政部于2025年12月31日发布了"关于征求《企业会计准则第30号——财务报表列报（修订征求意见稿）》及配套利润表格式（修订征求意见稿）意见的 函"(以下统称修订征求意见稿)。对现行财务报表列报准则进行修订，旨在服务经济高质量发展并支持高水平对外开放的需要。财政部基于"坚持国际趋 同，主动对接国际规则"、"坚持中国特色，着力服务实务需要"、"坚持综合施策，力求缓释实施成本"等原则，借鉴国际会计准则理事会于2024年4月发布 《国际财务报告准则第18号——财务报表的列示和披露》，结合中国实务情况，研究起草了该修订征求意见稿。 修订征求意见稿主要涉及财务报表的列示与披露，未改变会计确认和计量要求。其中，对资产负债表、现金流量表、所有者权益变动表改动较小，主要是 在不改变净利润金额的前提下对利润表进行更清晰的结构化呈现，并增加了管理层业绩指标等附注信息披露要求。 （一）优化利润表结构。 （二）引入管理层业绩指标披露要求。 修订征求意见稿规定，如果企业在财务报表之外正式公开的书面资料中，使用了并非会计准则要求的损益类合计项目，用于向使用者提供管理层对企业整 体财务业绩某方面的评价，则企业应当将其作为管理层界定的业绩 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the accounting treatment of transaction costs in the initial measurement of financial assets, specifically differentiating between debt investments and trading financial assets, highlighting the principles of accounting that guide these treatments [1][4]. Group 1: General Principles - There are three general principles in accounting: prudence principle, materiality principle, and substance over form principle [2]. Group 2: Measurement Principles - Four measurement principles are identified: accrual basis principle, matching principle, actual cost principle, and the principle of distinguishing between revenue expenditures and capital expenditures [3]. Group 3: Information Quality Principles - Six information quality principles are outlined: authenticity principle, timeliness principle, relevance principle, comparability principle, consistency principle, and clarity principle [3]. Group 4: Asset Classification - Debt investments are classified as long-term assets, while trading financial assets are classified as current assets, which influences how transaction costs are treated [3]. Group 5: Accounting Treatment - For trading financial assets, transaction costs are often directly expensed in the current period, aligning with the importance and prudence principles, and simplifying accounting processes [4]. - In contrast, transaction costs for debt investments, which are typically held for over a year, are included in the asset's cost, adhering to the actual cost and authenticity principles [3][4].

Core Viewpoint - The issuance of a "non-standard" audit report by Lixin Accounting Firm for ST Xinchao (600777) has sparked significant market discussion, raising questions about the professionalism and diligence of the audit process, especially given the conflicting opinions with previous auditors and international firms [1][2]. Group 1: Audit Report Details - Lixin's audit report is the first "non-standard" financial report in ST Xinchao's history and contradicts the opinions of top international audit firms, leading to investor skepticism regarding Lixin's professionalism [2]. - The audit covered a retrospective period of ten years, with ST Xinchao providing detailed asset lists and historical audit reports from its U.S. subsidiary, which consistently received standard unqualified opinions from Forvis Mazars, a top-ranked firm [2][3]. - Discrepancies were noted between the oil well information reported by the U.S. Railway Commission and ST Xinchao's operational data, with the company attributing these differences to variations in data collection methods over the years [3][4]. Group 2: Professionalism and Diligence - Lixin's report highlighted differences in accounts receivable and transaction amounts from customer confirmations, with the discrepancies being minor relative to the total amounts confirmed [4][5]. - The board of ST Xinchao emphasized that the minor discrepancies cited by Lixin were negligible and had already been resolved, questioning the necessity of a non-standard opinion based on these findings [5][6]. - The board also pointed out that Lixin's request for detailed asset records was inconsistent with industry practices in the U.S., where oil and gas assets are typically managed at a broader level [6][7]. Group 3: Market Response and Implications - The board of ST Xinchao called for a better understanding of the differences in industry practices and legal environments between China and the U.S., urging market intermediaries to objectively assess these factors [7]. - Despite the non-standard opinion, investors noted that the audit did not reveal any significant financial deficiencies, alleviating concerns about potential financial fraud and reducing the risk of delisting due to reporting issues [7].