题目内容
甲公司系2000年12月25日改制的股份有限公司，每年按净利润的10%和5%分别计提法定盈余公积和法定公益金．2003年度有关资料如下：（1）从2003年1月1日起，所得税的核算由应付税款法改为债务法。甲公司历年的所得税税率均为32%。2002年“月31日止（不包括下列各项因素），发生的应纳税时间性差异的累计金额为4000万元，发生的可抵减时间性差异的累计金额为2500万元（假定无转回的时间性差异）。计提的各项资产减值准备作为时间性差异处理，当期发生的可抵减时间性差异预计能够在三年内转回。（2）从2003年1月1日起，生产设备的预计使用年限由12年改为8年：同时，将生产设备的折旧方法由平均年限法改为双倍余额递减法。根据税法规定，生产设备采用平均年限法计提折旧，折旧年限为12年，预计净残值为零．本年度上述生产设备生产的A产品对外销售80%；A产品年初无在产品和产成品存货、年末无在产品存货（假定上述生产设备只用于生产A产品）。甲公司期末存货采用成本与可变现净值孰低法计价。年末库存A产品未发生减值。上述生产设备已使用3年，并已计提了3年的折旧，尚可使用5年，其账面原价为4800万元，累计折旧为1200万元（未计提减值准备），预计净残值为零。（3）从2003年起，甲公司试生产某种新产品（B产品），对生产B产品所需乙材料的成本采用先进先出法计价。乙材料2003年年初账面余额为零。2003年一、二、三季度各购入乙材料200公斤、300公斤、500公斤，每公斤成本分别为1000元、1200元、1260元。2003年度为生产B产品共领用乙材料600公斤，发生人工及制造费用21.5万元，B产品于年底全部完工。但因同类产品已先占领市场，且技术性能更优，甲公司生产的B产品全部未能出售．甲公司于2003年底预计B产品的全部销售价格为56万元（不含增值税），预计销售所发生的税费为6万元。剩余乙材料的可变现净值为52万元．（4）甲公司2003年度实现利润总额为8000万元。2003年度实际发生的业务招待费80万元，按税法规定允许抵扣的金额为70万元；国债利息收入为2万元：其他技税法规定不允许抵扣的金额为20万元（永久性差异）。除本题所列事项外，无其他纳税调整事项。要求：（1）计算甲公司2003年度应计提的生产设备的折旧额．（2）计算甲公司2003年库存B产品和库存乙材料的年末账面价值。（3）分别计算2003年度上述时间性差异所产生的所得税影响金额。（4）计算2003年度的所得税费用和应交的所得税，井编制有关会计分录．（5）计算2003年“月31日递延税款的账面余额（注明借方或贷方）．
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Questions 11 to 18 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
Questions 11 to 18 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
TEXT C Our public debates often fly off into the wild blue yonder of fantasy. So it’s been with the Federal Communications Commission’s new media-ownership rules. We’re told that, unless the FCC’s decision is reversed, it will worsen the menacing concentration of media power and that this will--to exaggerate only slightly--imperil free speech, the diversity of opinion and perhaps democracy itself. All this is more than overwrought; it completely misrepresents reality. In the past 30 years, media power has splintered dramatically; people have more choices than ever. Travel back to 1970. There were only three major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC); now, there’s a fourth (Fox). Then, there was virtually no cable TV; now, 68 percent of households have it. Then, FM radio was a backwater; now there are 5,892 FM stations, up from 2,196 in 1970. Then, there was only one national newspaper (The Wall Street Journal); now, there are two more (USA Today and The New York Times ). The idea that "big media" has dangerously increased its control over our choices is absurd. Yet much of the public, including journalists and politicians, believe religiously in this myth. They confuse size with power. It’s true that some gigantic media companies are getting even bigger at the expense of other media companies. But it’s not true that their power is increasing at the public’s expense. Popular hostility toward big media stems partly from the growing competition, which creates winners and losers and losers complain. Liberals don’t like the conservative talk shows, but younger viewers do. A June poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that viewers from the ages of 18 to 29 approved of "hosts with strong opinions" by a 58 percent to 32 percent margin. Social conservatives despise what one recently called "the raw sewage, ultra violence, graphic sex and raunchy language" of TV. But many viewers love it. Journalists detest the cost and profit pressures that result from stiff com petition with other news and entertainment outlets. It’s the tyranny of the market: a triumph of popular tastes. Big media companies try to anticipate, shape and profit from these tastes. But media diversity frustrates any one company from imposing its views and values on an unwilling audience. People just click to another channel or cancel their subscription. The paradox is this: the explosion of choices means that almost everyone may be offended by something. A lot of this free-floating hostility has attached itself to the FCC ownership rules. The backlash is easily exaggerated. In the Pew poll, 51 percent of respondents knew "nothing" of the rules; an additional 36 percent knew only "a little". The rules would permit any company to own television stations in areas with 45 percent of U. S. households, up from 35 percent now. The networks could buy more of their affiliate stations a step that, critics say, would jeopardize "local’ control and content. At best, that’s questionable. Network programs already fill most of affiliates’ hours. To keep local audiences, any owner must satisfy local demands, especially for news and weather programming. But the symbolic backlash against the FCC and big media does pose one hidden danger. For some U.S. house holds, over-the-air broadcasting is the only TV available, and its long-term survival is hardly ensured. Both cable and the Internet are eroding its audience. In 2002 cable programming had more primetime viewers than broadcast programming for 1he first time (48 percent vs. 46 percent). Streaming video, now primitive, will improve; sooner or later certainly in the next 10 or 15 years--many Web sites will be TV channels. If over-the-air broadcasting declines or disappears, the big losers will be the poor. Broadcast TV will survive and flourish only if the networks remain profitable enough to bid for and provide competitive entertainment, sports and news programming. The industry’s structure must give them a long-term stake in over-the-air broadcasting. Owning more TV stations is one possibility. If Congress prevents that, it may perversely hurt the very diversity and the people that it’s trying to protect. All of the following are people’s worries EXCEPT that ______.
Passage OneQuestions 26 to 28 are based on the passage you have just heard.
微信支付 
支付宝支付