网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
The company's prepayment to its supplier is regarded as a liability item.
A．Right
B．Wrong
C．Doesn't say
参考答案
更多 “ The company's prepayment to its supplier is regarded as a liability item.A．RightB．WrongC．Doesn't say ” 相关考题
考题
12 At 1 July 2004 a company had prepaid insurance of $8,200. On 1 January 2005 the company paid $38,000 forinsurance for the year to 30 September 2005.What figures should appear for insurance in the company’s financial statements for the year ended 30 June2005?Income statement Balance sheetA $27,200 Prepayment $19,000B $39,300 Prepayment $9,500C $36,700 Prepayment $9,500D $55,700 Prepayment $9,500
考题
(b) Assuming that Thai Curry Ltd claims relief for its trading loss against total profits under s.393A ICTA 1988,calculate the company’s corporation tax liability for the year ended 30 September 2005. (10 marks)
考题
(c) (i) State the date by which Thai Curry Ltd’s self-assessment corporation tax return for the year ended30 September 2005 should be submitted, and advise the company of the penalties that will be due ifthe return is not submitted until 31 May 2007. (3 marks)(ii) State the date by which Thai Curry Ltd’s corporation tax liability for the year ended 30 September 2005should be paid, and advise the company of the interest that will be due if the liability is not paid until31 May 2007. (3 marks)
考题
The following information is relevant for questions 9 and 10A company’s draft financial statements for 2005 showed a profit of $630,000. However, the trial balance did not agree,and a suspense account appeared in the company’s draft balance sheet.Subsequent checking revealed the following errors:(1) The cost of an item of plant $48,000 had been entered in the cash book and in the plant account as $4,800.Depreciation at the rate of 10% per year ($480) had been charged.(2) Bank charges of $440 appeared in the bank statement in December 2005 but had not been entered in thecompany’s records.(3) One of the directors of the company paid $800 due to a supplier in the company’s payables ledger by a personalcheque. The bookkeeper recorded a debit in the supplier’s ledger account but did not complete the double entryfor the transaction. (The company does not maintain a payables ledger control account).(4) The payments side of the cash book had been understated by $10,000.9 Which of the above items would require an entry to the suspense account in correcting them?A All four itemsB 3 and 4 onlyC 2 and 3 onlyD 1, 2 and 4 only
考题
(b) (i) Compute the corporation tax liability of Speak Write Ltd for its first trading period on the assumptionthat the IR 35 legislation applies to all of its income. (2 marks)
考题
The recovery of funds of a commercial bank is ideally managed on a parallel with its expenditure.A．RightB．WrongC．Doesn't say
考题
A commercial bank should try its best to increase the profits of its creditor and ownership sources.A．RightB．WrongC．Doesn't say
考题
CDs may be exchanged for money before its maturity date either in money markets or at commercial banks.A．RightB．WrongC．Doesn't say
考题
A commercial bank shall establish and improve its system of internal control according to law.A．RightB．WrongC．Doesn't say
考题
An industrial corporate can meet its financial needs by seeking funds from the capital market.A．RightB．WrongC．Doesn't say
考题
Don't establish a cooperation relation with any company () you have checked its background.
A.ifB.unlessC.whenD.though
考题
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.30.It can be inferred from the last paragraph thatA.Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.
B.the authority of the NRC will be defied.
C.Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.
D.Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.
考题
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.27.By entering into the 2002 agreement,Entergy intended toA.obtain protection from Vermont regulators.
B.seek favor from the federal legislature.
C.acquire an extension of its business license.
D.get permission to purchase a power plant.
考题
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.29.In the author’s view,the Vermont case will testA.Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.
B.the mature of states’patchwork regulations.
C.the federal authority over nuclear issues.
D.the limits of states’power over nuclear issues.
考题
Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.26.The phrase“reneging on”（Line 3.para.1）is closest in meaning toA.condemning.
B.reaffirming.
C.dishonoring.
D.securing.
考题
For the new country to survive,（ ）for its people to enjoy prosperity,new economic policies will be required.A.to name a few
B.let alone
C.not to speak
D.let’s say
考题
It is important to note that from the core company’s perspective, the supply chain includes （）, upstream supplier and down stream customers.A、Internal functionsB、External functionsC、Information systemsD、Physical distribution
考题
单选题While Ms Varley was a school teacher, she also taught company executives.A
RightB
WrongC
Doesn’t say
考题
问答题Q6: Do you think the location of a company’s premises is important for its competitiveness? (Why?/Why not?)
考题
单选题If Japan ______ its relation with that country it will have to find another supplier of raw materials.A
precludesB
terminatesC
partitionsD
expires
考题
单选题The company plans to take over some other small companies in France.A
Right.B
Wrong.C
Doesn’t say.
考题
单选题The applicants should email their Curriculum Vitae to the company.A
RightB
WrongC
Doesn’t say
考题
问答题Practice 9 ● You are the Purchasing Manager for a large company. Last month you decided to look for a new supplier for the stationery and office equipment that your company uses. You have found a new supplier, Compass Office Goods Ltd. ● Write a memo to your company’s department heads: ● explaining why you looked for a new supplier. ● saying who the new supplier is. ● asking for feedback about the goods that they supply. ● Write 40—50 words.
考题
单选题The likely candidates will receive phone call from the company.A
RightB
WrongC
Doesn’t say
考题
单选题For the new country to survive,（）for its people to enjoy prosperity, new economic policies will be requiredA
to name a fewB
let aloneC
not to speakD
let's say
热门标签
最新试卷