搜题请搜索小程序“爱下问搜题”
问题 问答题

甲公司为上市公司，2010年有关资料如下： 　　(1)甲公司2010年初的递延所得税资产借方余额为190万元，递延所得税负债贷方余额为10万元，具体构成项目如下：

　　(2)甲公司2010年度实现的利润总额为1 610万元。2010年度相关交易或事项资料如下： 　　①年末转回应收账款坏账准备20万元。根据税法规定，转加的坏账损失不计入应纳税所得额。 　　②年末根据交易性金融资产公允价值变动确认公允价值变动收益20万元。根据税法规定，交易性金融资产公允价值变动收益不计入应纳税所得额。 　　③年末根据可供金融资产公允价值变动增加资本公积40万元。根据税法规定，可供金融资产公允价值变动金额不计入应纳税所得额。 　　④当年实际支付产品保修费用50万元，冲减前期确认的相关预计负债;当年又确认产品保修费用10万元，增加相关预计负债。根据税法规定，实际支付的产品保修费用允许税前扣除。但预计的产品保修费用不允许税前扣除。 　　⑤当年发生研究开发支出100万元，全部费用化计入当期损益。根据税法规定，计算应纳税所得额时，当年实际发生的费用化研究开发支出可以按50%加计扣除。 　　(3)2010年末资产负债表相关项目金额及其计税基础如下：

　　(4)甲公司适用的所得税税率为25%，预计未来期间适用的所得税税率不会发生变化，未来的期间能够产生足够的应纳税所得额用以抵扣可抵扣暂时性差异;不会考虑其他因素。 　　要求： (答案中的金额单位用万元表示)

根据上述资料，计算甲公司2010年应纳税所得额和应交所得税金额。

答案

参考答案：

应纳税所得额=会计利润总额1610+当期发生的可抵扣暂时性差异10-当期发生的应纳税暂时性差异20-当期转回的可抵扣暂时性差异(20+50)+当期转回的应纳税暂时性差异0-非暂时性差异(100×50%+420)=1060(万元) 　　注释： 　　当期发生的可抵扣暂时性差异10指的是本期增加的产品质量费用计提的预计负债10产生的可抵扣暂时性差异。 　　当期发生的应纳税暂时性差异20指的是年末根据交易性金融资产公允价值变确认公允价值变动收益20导致交易性金融资产新产生的应纳税暂时性差异。 　　当期转回的可抵扣暂时性差异(20+50)指的是本期转回的坏账准备而转回的可抵扣暂时性差异20以及实际发生的产品质量费用50转回的可抵扣暂时性差异50。 　　非暂时性差异(100×50%+420)指的是加计扣除的研发支出100×50%以及税前弥补亏损金额420。 　　应交所得税=1060×25%=265(万元)。

单项选择题

Passage Three

The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Until recently, child psychologists supported pioneer developmentalist Jean Piaget in his hypothesis that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative consequences causeD. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism (rules made by authorities must be obeyed) and imminent justice (if rules are broken, punishment will be meted out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Keasey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage.

Keasey’s research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmfulacts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, serf-defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to "Bonnie wrecks Arm’s pretend house" depending on whether Bonnie did it "so somebody won’t fall over it" or because Bonnie wanted "to make Ann feel bad". Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified; the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments.

Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make subtle distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six-year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable, harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however, Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they had become morally autonomous.

According to the passage, Keasey’s findings support which of the following conclusions about six-year-old children ？（）

A．They have the ability to make autonomous moral judgments.

B．They regard moral absolutism as a threat to their moral autonomy.

C．They do not understand the concept of public duty.

D．They accept moral judgments made by their peers more easily than do older children.
查看答案
单项选择题

Should anyone much care whether an American boy living overseas gets six vicious thwacks on his backside So much has been argued, rejoined and rehashed about the case of Michael Fay, an 18-year-old convicted of vandalism and sentenced to a caning in Singapore, that an otherwise sorry little episode has shaded into a certified International Incident, complete with intercessions by the U. S. head of state. An affair has outraged American libertarians even as it has animated a general debate about morality East and West and the proper functioning of U.S. law and order.

Which, to all appearances, is what Singapore wanted. The question of whether anyone should care about Michael Fay is idle. though Singapore officials profess shock at the attention his case had drawn, they know Americans care deeply about the many sides of this issue. Does a teenager convicted of spraying cars with easily removable paint deserve half a dozen powerful strokes At what point does swift, sure punishment become torture By what moral authority can America, with its high rates of lawlessness and license, preach of a safe society about human rights

The caning sentence has concentrated minds wondrously on an already lively domestic debate over what constitutes a due balance between individual and majority rights. Too bad Michael Fay has become a focus for this discussion. Not only does he seem destined to be pummeled and immobilized, but the use of Singapore as a standard for judging any other society, let alone the cacophonous U. S. , is fairly worthless.

To begin with, Singapore is an offshore republic that tightly limits immigration. Imagine crime-ridden Los Angeles, to which Singapore is sometimes contrasted, with hardly any inflow of the hard-luck, often desperate fortune seekers who flock to big cities. Even without its government’s disciplinary measures, Singapore more than plausibly would be much the same as it is now. An academic commonplace today is that the major factor determining social peace and prosperity is culture--a sense of common identity, tradition and values.

Unlike Singapore, though, the U. S. today is a nation in search of a common culture, trying to be a universal society that assimilates the traditions of people from all over the world. Efforts to safeguard minority as well as individual rights have produced a gridlock in the justice system. Its troubles stem more from the decay of family life than from any government failures. Few societies can afford to look on complacently. As travel eases and cultures intermix, the American experience is becoming the world’s.

The circumstances of this affair--evidently no Singaporean has ever been punished under the Vandalism Act for defacing private property--suggest that Singapore has used Fay as an unwilling point man in a growing quarrel between East and West about human rights.

What did the writer say happened to Michael Fay in Singapore（）

A. His case captured worldwide attention

B. He received severe punishment

C. His experience was out of the ordinary

D. He was likely to be disabled
查看答案