For each of the following situations, indicate whether or not the CPA may be in violation of the AICPA Code of Ethics. Explain why you think so using specific rules of the Code, whether or not it has been determined that there is a violation, so it must be clearly stated.

1- Pera, CPA, has extensive knowledge of tax law, and has realized that she knows many people who prepare their own tax returns. Therefore, he has proposed that they review his returns and not charge him any fee for said review. However, he tells them that he is going to charge them a third of the total amount of savings that he manages to identify in reviewing each spreadsheet.

2- Darden, CPA, and his associates already audit several municipalities. However, he proposes contacting other CPAs so that they can get more municipalities as clients. In fact, he offers to pay them a commission as intermediaries of $500 (finder's fee) for each client they get.

3- The firm of Bell & Greer, CPAs, was hired by Trek Corporation, a private entity, to carry out the audit for the year ending December 31, 2019. Bell & Greer has two offices: one in Los Angeles, CA , and another in Newport Beach, CA. The Loa Angeles office will audit Trek Corporation. One of the partners in the Los Angeles office of Bell & Greer invested in the acquisition of a ranch in Montana jointly with one of the directors of Trek Corporation. The value of the investment is substantial to the personal capital of each of them.

4- Bill Jones, an individual practicing CPA, made the audit worksheets of one of his clients available to another CPA for the latter to conduct a peer review of Jones' professional practice, but did so without your client's consent.

5- John Adams, CPA, accepted and contracted to audit Kelly Company. During the audit he realized that he did not have the technical competence to carry it out. However, he concluded it and issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements of Kelly Company.

6- In the process of preparing the tax return for his client, the CPA deducted an item at the request of the client, even though he knows that it is not justified based on the tax law.