题目内容
南海公司为增值税一般纳税企业，销售的产品为应纳增值税产品，增值税税率为17%，产品销售价格中不含增值税额。适用的所得税税率为25%。产品销售成本按经济业务逐笔结转。南海公司2007年发生如下经济业务： (1)向中华公司销售电子产品一批，销售价格20万元，产品成本12万元。产品已经发出，并开出增值税专用发票，已向银行办妥托收手续。 (2)委托环海公司销售电子产品一批，协议价格10万元，产品成本6万元。南海公司收到环海公司开来的销售清单，环海公司已将销售的该批电子产品售出80%。 (3)收到环海公司按售价10%扣除手续费后的金额存入f银行。 (4)采用交款提货方式向永昌公司销售数码产品一批，售价20000元，产品成本11250元，收到的款项已存入银行。 (5)收到中华公司电子产品退货30件。该退货为南海公司2006年售出，售出时每件销售价200元，单位成本175元，该货款当时已如数收存银行。甲公司用银行存款支付退货款项，退回的电子产品验收入库，并按规定开出红字增值税专用发票(该项退货不属于资产负债表日后事项)。 (6)计提交易性金融资产利息5000元，该交易性金融资产为分期付息的企业债券。 (7)计提已完工工程项目的长期借款利息6000元；用银行存款支付发生的管理费用5000元，销售费用2000元。 (8)用银行存款支付非公益救济性捐款支出1万元。 要求：根据上述资料，回答下列问题： (1)编制甲公司有关经济业务的会计分录(除“应交税费”科目外，其余科目可不写明细科目，答案中的金额单位用万元表示)。 (2)计算本期税前会计利润和本期应交所得税。 (3)编制公司2007年度的利润表。 利润表 编制单位：南海公司 2007年 单位：万元 项目 本期金额 一、主营业务收入 减：主营业务成本 营业税金及附加 销售费用 管理费用 财务费用 资产减值损失 加：公允价值变动收益(损失以“—”号填列) 投资收益(损失以“—”号填列) 二、营业利润(亏损以“—”号填列) 加：营业外收入 减：营业外支出 三、利润总额(亏损以“—”号填列) 减：所得税费用 四、净利涧(净损失以“—”号填列)
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A recent study discovered that after surviving a heart attack, women have a slightly higher risk than men of dying in the next 30 days. The finding, researchers say, likely reflects the differences in the type of heart failure women experience, as well as the severity of the condition. (When the severity of the heart attack was taken into consideration, the mortality rates were more comparable between men and women.) The study examined medical records for more than 136,000 patients who had suffered from acute coronary syndromes (ACS急性冠状动脉综合症). They found that, in the month after first suffering ACS, the mortality rate among men was 5.3%, compared with 9.6% in women. Under the umbrella term ACS there are multiple conditions—including heart attack caused by either completely or partially blocked blood supply, and what doctors refer to as "unstable angina (心绞痛)," or when slowly decreasing blood and oxygen supply causes tightness in the chest, often a precursor (前兆) to the more severe types of heart attack. In this study, a heart attack caused by completely or nearly completely blocked blood supply was more likely to result in death after 30 days for women, compared with men. But for slightly less severe incidents, in which blood flow was partially or temporarily blocked, or in cases of unstable angina, women had lower mortality rates in the following 30 days than men did. The differences, which incorporate both sex and type of ACS, suggest to researchers that physicians should take gender into consideration when assessing patients, and deciding on the best course of treatment or prevention. Women, who in the study tended to be older than men when they suffered heart attack, were also more likely to have concurrent complications (并发症) such as diabetes (糖尿病) or hypertension (高血压). And whereas men were more likely to have narrowed coronary arteries (冠状动脉), which was less frequently the case among women. After a more severe incident, the fact that women had a greater risk for death suggested to doctors that it might be due to the subsequent reduction in blood flow. On the other hand, that they got along better than men after the less severe forms of ACS—partial blockage or unstable angina—was likely a result of the generally less severe blockages seen in women, as compared to men. Heart disease is the leading cause of death among both men and women, and though, overall women’s health outcomes continue to be slightly worse than men’s, they are improving. And, researchers hope, with more studies illuminating the way in which heart disease uniquely impacts women and men, new gender-specific treatment methods may be the way of the future. Among these ACS patients, women were more likely to ______.
Meat eaters in developed countries will have to eat a lot less meat, cutting consumption by 50%, to avoid the worst consequences of future climate change, new research warns. The fertilizers used in farming are responsible for a significant share of the warming that causes climate change. A study published in Environmental Research Letters warns that drastic changes in food production and at the dinner table are needed by 2050 in order to prevent disastrous global warming. It’s probably the most difficult challenge in dealing with climate change: how to reduce emissions from food production while still producing enough to feed a global population projected to reach 9 billion by the middle of this century. The findings, by Eric Davidson, director of the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, say the developed world will have to cut fertilizer use by 50% and persuade consumers in the developed world to stop eating so much meat. Davidson concedes it’s a hard sell. "I think there are huge challenges in convincing people in the west to reduce portion sizes or the frequency of eating meat. That is part of our culture right now," he said. Researchers have been paying closer attention in the past few years to the impact of agriculture on climate change, and the parallel problem of growing enough food for an expanding population. Some scientists are at work growing artificial meat which would avoid the fertilizers and manure (粪肥) responsible for climate change. Nitrous oxide (一氧化二氮), released by fertilizers and animal manure, is the most potent of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The UN’s climate body has called for deep cuts to those emissions. Growing feed crops, for cattle and pigs, produces more of those emissions than food crops that go directly into the human food chain. Eating less meat would reduce demand for fertilizers as well as reduce the amount of manure produced. Davidson also suggests changes in current farming practice. For example, such as growing winter ground cover crops would help absorb nitrogen (氮) and prevent its release into the atmosphere. In reaching his conclusion, Davidson draws on figures from the Food and Agricultural Organization suggesting the world population will reach 8.9 billion by 2050. Meat consumption is also projected to increase sharply to 89kg per person a year in rich countries. Such a trajectory (发展轨迹) would put the world on course to more severe consequences of climate change. Davidson is not suggesting people give up meat entirely. "The solution isn’t that everyone needs to become a vegetarian. Simply reducing portion sizes and frequency would go a long way," he said. So would switching from beef and pork, which have a high carbon footprint (碳排放量), to chicken or fish. What may be the most preferred diet by Davidson
Meat eaters in developed countries will have to eat a lot less meat, cutting consumption by 50%, to avoid the worst consequences of future climate change, new research warns. The fertilizers used in farming are responsible for a significant share of the warming that causes climate change. A study published in Environmental Research Letters warns that drastic changes in food production and at the dinner table are needed by 2050 in order to prevent disastrous global warming. It’s probably the most difficult challenge in dealing with climate change: how to reduce emissions from food production while still producing enough to feed a global population projected to reach 9 billion by the middle of this century. The findings, by Eric Davidson, director of the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, say the developed world will have to cut fertilizer use by 50% and persuade consumers in the developed world to stop eating so much meat. Davidson concedes it’s a hard sell. "I think there are huge challenges in convincing people in the west to reduce portion sizes or the frequency of eating meat. That is part of our culture right now," he said. Researchers have been paying closer attention in the past few years to the impact of agriculture on climate change, and the parallel problem of growing enough food for an expanding population. Some scientists are at work growing artificial meat which would avoid the fertilizers and manure (粪肥) responsible for climate change. Nitrous oxide (一氧化二氮), released by fertilizers and animal manure, is the most potent of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The UN’s climate body has called for deep cuts to those emissions. Growing feed crops, for cattle and pigs, produces more of those emissions than food crops that go directly into the human food chain. Eating less meat would reduce demand for fertilizers as well as reduce the amount of manure produced. Davidson also suggests changes in current farming practice. For example, such as growing winter ground cover crops would help absorb nitrogen (氮) and prevent its release into the atmosphere. In reaching his conclusion, Davidson draws on figures from the Food and Agricultural Organization suggesting the world population will reach 8.9 billion by 2050. Meat consumption is also projected to increase sharply to 89kg per person a year in rich countries. Such a trajectory (发展轨迹) would put the world on course to more severe consequences of climate change. Davidson is not suggesting people give up meat entirely. "The solution isn’t that everyone needs to become a vegetarian. Simply reducing portion sizes and frequency would go a long way," he said. So would switching from beef and pork, which have a high carbon footprint (碳排放量), to chicken or fish. What is the hardest task in coping with the future climate change
Meat eaters in developed countries will have to eat a lot less meat, cutting consumption by 50%, to avoid the worst consequences of future climate change, new research warns. The fertilizers used in farming are responsible for a significant share of the warming that causes climate change. A study published in Environmental Research Letters warns that drastic changes in food production and at the dinner table are needed by 2050 in order to prevent disastrous global warming. It’s probably the most difficult challenge in dealing with climate change: how to reduce emissions from food production while still producing enough to feed a global population projected to reach 9 billion by the middle of this century. The findings, by Eric Davidson, director of the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, say the developed world will have to cut fertilizer use by 50% and persuade consumers in the developed world to stop eating so much meat. Davidson concedes it’s a hard sell. "I think there are huge challenges in convincing people in the west to reduce portion sizes or the frequency of eating meat. That is part of our culture right now," he said. Researchers have been paying closer attention in the past few years to the impact of agriculture on climate change, and the parallel problem of growing enough food for an expanding population. Some scientists are at work growing artificial meat which would avoid the fertilizers and manure (粪肥) responsible for climate change. Nitrous oxide (一氧化二氮), released by fertilizers and animal manure, is the most potent of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The UN’s climate body has called for deep cuts to those emissions. Growing feed crops, for cattle and pigs, produces more of those emissions than food crops that go directly into the human food chain. Eating less meat would reduce demand for fertilizers as well as reduce the amount of manure produced. Davidson also suggests changes in current farming practice. For example, such as growing winter ground cover crops would help absorb nitrogen (氮) and prevent its release into the atmosphere. In reaching his conclusion, Davidson draws on figures from the Food and Agricultural Organization suggesting the world population will reach 8.9 billion by 2050. Meat consumption is also projected to increase sharply to 89kg per person a year in rich countries. Such a trajectory (发展轨迹) would put the world on course to more severe consequences of climate change. Davidson is not suggesting people give up meat entirely. "The solution isn’t that everyone needs to become a vegetarian. Simply reducing portion sizes and frequency would go a long way," he said. So would switching from beef and pork, which have a high carbon footprint (碳排放量), to chicken or fish. Which of the following statements is NOT a suggestion made by Davidson
微信支付 
支付宝支付