问题 问答题

甲公司购置一套需要安装的生产线。与该生产线有关的业务如下:
(1) 2001年9月30日,为购建该生产线向建设银行专门借入资金1 000 000元,并存入银行。该借款期限为2年,年利率为9.6%,到期一次还本付息,不计复利。
(2) 2001年9月30日,用上述借款购入待安装的生产线。增值税专用发票上注明的买价为800 000元,增值税额为136 000元。另支付保险费及其他杂项费用64 000元。该待安装生产线交付本公司安装部门安装。
(3) 安装生产线时,领用本公司产品一批。该批产品实际成本为80 000元,税务部门核定的计税价格为160 000元,适用的增值税税率为17%。
(4) 安装工程人员应计工资36 000元,用银行存款支付其他安装费用32 800元。
(5) 2001年12月31日,安装工程结束,并随即投入行政管理部门使用。该生产线预计使用年限为5年,采用双倍余额递减法计提折旧(预计净残值率为5%)。
(6) 2003年12月31日,甲公司将该生产线出售。出售时用银行存款支付清理费用 60 000元,出售所得款项1 000 000元全部存入银行。于当日清理完毕。
假定固定资产按年计提折旧,借款利息每年年末一次计息。假定在资产达到预定可使用状态前的利息都计入工程成本。
要求:
(1) 编制甲公司2001年度借款、购建生产线及年末计提利息的会计分录;
(2) 编制甲公司2002年度计提折旧和利息的会计分录;
(3) 编制甲公司2003年度计提折旧及出售该生产线相关的会计分录。(“应交税金”科目要求写出明细科目)

答案

参考答案:(1) 甲公司2001年度相关会计分录如下:
①借:银行存款 1 000 000
贷:长期借款 1 000 000
②借:在建工程 1 000 000
贷:银行存款 1 000 000
③借:在建工程 107 200
贷:库存商品 80 000
应交税金——应交增值税(销项税额) 27 200
④借:在建工程 68 800
贷:应付工资 36 000
银行存款 32 800
⑤借:在建工程 24 000(1 000 000×9.6%/12×3)
贷:长期借款 24 000
借:固定资产 1 200 000
贷:在建工程 1 200 000
(2) 甲公司2002年度计提折旧和利息的会计分录如下:
①双倍余额递减法第一年的折旧额:1 200000×2/5=480000(元)
借:制造费用 480 000
贷:累计折旧 480 000
②2002年的长期借款的利息应计入企业的财务费用:
借:财务费用 96 000
贷:长期借款 96 000
(3) 甲公司2003年度计提折旧及出售该生产线的相关会计分录如下:
①借:制造费用 288 000[(1 200 000-480 000)×2/5]
贷:累计折旧 288 000
②借:固定资产清理 432 000
累计折旧 768 000
贷:固定资产 1 200 000
③借:固定资产清 60 000
贷:银行存款 60 000
④借:银行存款 1 000 000
贷:固定资产清理 1000 000
⑤借:固定资产清 508 000
贷:营业外收入 508 000

判断题
问答题

Radiation occurs from three natural sources: radioactive material in the environment, such as in soil, rock, or building materials; cosmic rays; and substances in the human body, such as radioactive potassium in bone and radioactive carbon in tissues. These natural sources account for an exposure of about 100 millirems a year for the average American.
The largest single source of man-made radiation in medical x-rays, yet most scientists agree that hazards from this source are not as great as those from weapons-test fallout, since strontium-90 and carbon-14 become incorporated into the body, hence delivering radiation for an entire lifetime. (46) The issue is, however, by no means uncontroversial; indeed, the last two decades have witnessed intensified examination and dispute about the effects of low-level radiation.
A survey conducted in Britain confirmed that an abnormally high percentage of patients suffering from arthritis of the spine who had been treated with x-rays contracted cancer. Another study revealed a high incidence of childhood cancer in cases where the mother had been given x-rays. (47) These studies have pointed to the need to re-examine the assumption that exposure to low linear energy transfer presented only a minor risk.
Recently, examination of the death certificates of former employees of a West Coast plant which produces plutonium for nuclear weapons revealed markedly higher rates for cancers of the pancreas, lung, bone marrow and lymph systems than would have been expected in a normal population.
(48) While the National Academy of Sciences committee attributes these differences to chemical or other environmental causes, rather than radiation, other scientists maintain that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, leads to an increase in cancer risk. (49) It is believed by some that a dose of one rem, if sustained over many generations, would lead to an increase of one percent in the number of 1,000 disorders per million births.
In the meantime, regulatory efforts have been disorganized, fragmented, and inconsistent, characterized by internecine strife and bureaucratic delays. A Senate freport concluded that coordination of regulation among involved departments and agencies was not possible because of jurisdictional disputes and confusion. (50) One Federal agency has .been unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain sufficient funding and manpower for the enforcement of existing radiation laws, and the chairperson of a panel especially created to develop a coordinated Federal program has resigned.