题目内容
案例分析题某市轿车生产企业为增值税一般纳税人，2009年经营情况如下：(1)对外销售A型小轿车10000辆，每辆含税售价17．55万元，共计取得含税金额175500万元；支付销售过程中的保险费和装卸费439万元；(2)销售A型小轿车40辆给本公司职工，以成本价核算取得不含税销售金额400万元；该公司新设计生产B型小轿车5辆，每辆成本价12万元，捐赠给市政府，市场上B型小轿车不含税销售价格是16.2万元；(3)向母公司支付管理费130万元，发生技术研发费280万元，其他管理费用1100万元。(4)发生广告费用700万元、业务宣传费用140万元、代销手续费90万元；(5)发生财务费用900万元，其中向其他企业借款支付的利息费用600万元，已知向其他企业借款的年利息率为6%，金融机构同期贷款利率为5%；(6)同期从境外某国分支机构，取得税后收益200万元，在境外已按20%的税率缴纳了所得税。(按照税法的规定缴纳了增值税24678.67万元、消费税30136.2万元、城市维护建设税和教育费附加5481.49万元)根据上述资料和税法有关规定，回答下列问题： 该企业2009年境内生产经营应纳税所得额为（）万元。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
TEXT D The Roslin Institute announced last week that it had applied to patent the method by which its scientists had cloned Dolly the sheep. The patent, if granted, would apply to "nuclear transfer technology" in both human and animal cells. One point of the patent is to help fund research into cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart failure. Its other aim is to make some money. Last May, the Roslin Institute was taken over by Geron, an American biotech company. Geron has committed ＄32.5 million to research at the Roslin. It wants to get its money back. Two scientists from Stanford who developed the use of restriction enzymes, one of the fundamental techniques in biotechnology, made about pounds 80 million out of it in the 17 years before the patent expired. So you can see why Geron-Roslin is so keen to get its patent. There’s nothing wrong with that. Without the prospect of a return at the end of investment, no one would ever lend money to anyone involved in bio-medical research—and given the huge sums now required to develop a new drug, or a new diagnostic test for some medical condition, that would mean there wouldn’t be any research. It is wonderful when people give money to worthwhile causes with no hope of personal gain. But appealing to altruism simply won’t raise the billions required to develop and market drugs and therapies that rely on biotechnology. For that, you have to appeal to investors’ self-interest—which is why the bulk of medical research is funded not by charities or even tax-payers but by private companies and individuals. The fact that biotech research depends on patents generates profound hostility. The opposition to the patenting of genetic sequences, cells, tissues and clones—critics call it "the privatization of nature"—takes many forms, from a Luddite desire to stop scientific research to a genuine, if mistaken, conviction that common ownership is always morally preferable to private property. But all of the objections have a single root. the sense that it must be wrong to make money out of the constituents of the human body. They cannot be "owned" by any individual, because they belong to everyone. There cannot be "property in people". That is a profound mistake. The truth is rather the opposite: there is only property in things because there is property in people. People own their own bodies, and that ownership is the basis of their property rights (and most other individual rights, come to that). The problem with the law as it stands is that it doesn’t sufficiently recognize an individual’s property rights over his or her own body, and his or her entitlement to make money out of it. The outcome of a lawsuit in the US nearly 10 years ago defined the de facto rules governing the ownership of human tissues, and the financial exploitation of the discoveries that derive from them. In Moorev the Regents of UCLA the issue was whether an individual was entitled to a share of the profits that a biotech company made from developing drugs or treatments derived from cells that came from his body. Dr David Golde had discovered that John Moore, one of his patients, had a pancreas whose cells had some unusual properties that might be helpful in treating a form of cancer. In his laboratory, Golde developed what his called a "cell line" from Moore’s cells and patented it. When Moore found out, he sued Dr Golde for a share of whatever profits the cell line generated. Mr. Moore lost. The court said he had no right to any of those profits, because he did not own the cells removed from his body. Moreover, the court held that since "research on human cells plays a critical role in medical research", granting property rights to the patient from whom the cells came threatened to "hinder research by restricting access to the raw materials". In essence, that decision said that biotech companies could own and make money out of human cells and tissue—but the person from whom that tissue or cells came could not. The logic behind that decision is bizarre. No one except the most unreconstructed communist disputes that I own my own body. Indeed, it is only because I own my body that I can come to own anything else independent of it, mixing my labor with something being the most fundamental means by which I can come to own it. If cells from Mr. Moore’s body are his property, how can anyone else come to own them—unless he sells or gives those cells to them (778 words) What does the author argue about in this passage
What is the woman waiting for
案例分析题(共12题。由单选和多选组成)北京市某房地产开发公司，2009年发生以下业务：(1)1月签订土地使用权出让合同，承受市区一处土地的使用权，按合同规定应支付土地出让金7000万元，后经申请减免1000万元；(2)以上述土地开发建设普通标准住宅楼、医院和写字楼各一栋，占地面积各为1/3；(3)住宅楼开发成本2000万元，无法提供金融机构证明利息支出具体数额；(4)住宅楼配套的医院开发成本200万元，无法准确分摊利息支出，根据相关规定，医院产权属于住宅楼全体业主所有；(5)写字楼开发成本3000万元，分摊到的利息支出300万元且能提供金融机构证明，其中包括超过贷款期限的利息10万元和罚息30万；(6)11月份全部竣工验收后，公司将住宅楼全部出售，签订合同取得收入10000万元。将写字楼的50%，签订合同按市场价4000万元出售；写字楼剩下的50%对外投资开设一商场，签订合同共担经营风险，当年收到25万元。其他相关资料：该房地产公司所在省规定，按土地增值税暂行条例规定的最高限额计算扣除房地产开发费用，契税已计入开发成本中，契税税率为5%。根据上述资料和税法有关规定，回答下列问题： 计算征收土地增值税时应扣除的项目合计为（）万元。
将文中所有错词“网罗”替换为“网络”；将标题段(“常用的网络互联设备”)设置位三号红色空心黑体、居中。 (2) 将正文各段文字(“常用的网络互联设备……开销更大。”)的中文设置为小四号宋体、英文设置为小四号Bookman Old Style字体；各段落悬挂缩进2字符、段前间距0.6行。 (3) 将文档页面的纸型设置为“16开(18.2×26厘米)”、上下边界各为3厘米；并以原文件名保存文档。
微信支付 
支付宝支付