某公司计算缴纳企业所得税时，提出减免企业所得税的请求，其中哪项不符合法律规定
A．购买国债取得的利息收入，请求免征企业所得税
B．经营一项农业项目的所得，请求减征企业所得税
C．投资经营一项无国家扶持基础设施项目的所得，请求免征企业所得税
D．开发一项新技术的研究开发费用，请求在计算应纳税所得额时加计加除
参考答案：C
解析： 《企业所得税法》第27条规定：企业的下列所得，可以免征、减征企业所得税：(1)从事农、林、牧、渔业项目的所得；(2)从事国家重点扶持的公共基础设施项目投资经营的所得；(3)从事符合条件的环境保护、节能节水项目的所得；(4)符合条件的技术转让所得；(5)本法第3条第3款规定的所得。综上，A、B、D项符合法律规定，C项不符合，依题意，当选。
Passage One
| A few weeks ago, the Food Standards Agency (FSA. in the UK issued a report evaluating nutrient levels in organic versus non-organic foods like fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, and dairy products. It is a complete, rigorous piece of research. And they found that, in terms of nutritional content, the differences between organic and non-organic foods are negligible. As the report states, "... organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content." They did in fact find some nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, but concluded that it is "unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health." So here they have a nicely delimited (界定的) study of available research with rigorous standards and a fairly worded conclusion, all publicly available to download and read on the FSA website. The reaction, not surprisingly, was spectacular. The British tabloids alternately gloated (幸灾乐祸) with delight over the comeuppance(赢得的惩罚)of extravagant middle class shopping habits or frivolously attacked the study for insulting the people’s common sense. But it was the reaction of the Soil Association, the leading British organic certification organization, which highlighted just how difficult it can be for good science to be understood. The Soil Association’s response, published in papers across the land, entirely disregarded the intent of the study and instead argued that organic food is better for the environment and contains less pesticides than non- organic food. But in the very first paragraph of the report, the team states that they aren’t looking at the impact on the environment of organic agriculture or the effect of pesticide use, both of which the FSA has extensively examined in other research. They are specifically looking at nutritional comparison. The Soil Association further argued that the FSA report had ignored studies that showed any benefit of organic food. As Ben Goldacre incisively dissected on his popular blog, Bad Science, the Soil Association’s response was logically flawed and entirely beside the point. The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific. It’s hardly the right stance for an organization that carries su.ch widespread support from the well-educated, critical-thinking middle classes who choose to eat organic food. Any of the many other reasons to go organic—whether it is to avoid pesticides, to encourage better livestock practices, or to simply eat better tasting food—are sufficient to continue supporting the efforts of organic farmers. By misrepresenting the science and its intent, the Soil Association has damaged its credibility and objectivity, the very attributes that its organic label—a stamp of approval—is intended to convey. |
The Soil Association’s asserted that the FSA’s report ______.
A．had noticed the impact of organic agriculture on the environment
B．had ignored to examine the effect of pesticide use
C．should be criticized for neglecting the benefit of organic food
D．has entirely disregarded the intent of the study