The plant and machinery account （at cost) of a bus...

The Inland Revenue on Thursday accused the British film industry of abusing government aid, with every production of recent years deliberately over-claiming tax relief.

Revenue officials called in about 20 members of the film industry and warned them of severe consequences if the "exploitation" of tax-relief schemes did not immediately stop.

The move, which affects the including low to high-budget film-makers and financiers, is the latest in a series of attempts by the Revenue to clamp down on tax loopholes in an attempt to raise more money for the Exchequer,

But the film industry responded on Thursday night, saying the Revenue could drive productions overseas and would confuse investors.

A series of tax relief schemes, introduced in 1997, enables those involved in the financing of qualifying British-made films to claim the costs of production against future income. The schemes have Become popular with investors seeking a tax shelter, with an estimated ￡400m invested in the schemes in 1997 rising to about ￡2bn last year.

But the Revenue said the industry was exploiting rules on tax relief by "double dipping", that is, by claiming relief more than once against a single piece of expenditure. While not illegal, the Revenue said, the industry was "not playing fair". It said double-dipping was "against the spirit" of legislation designed to encourage investment in the British film industry.

The Revenue said the practice of double dipping was "virtually universal", with "every qualifying film it had seen financed on the basis of double dipping". It warned it would "take all steps to counter such abuse including, where necessary, advising ministers on introducing legislation to put matters beyond doubt".

"Both the Revenue and the government are becoming increasingly exasperated at the extent to which some parts of the industry are exploiting the film reliefs", the Revenue said. "The government remains committed to encouraging film production in the UK through use of the reliefs in the way in which the legislation allows—but this does not extend to deliberate exploitation of those reliefs".

Large film financiers said on Thursday night that the Revenue's action could undermine growth prospects for the British film industry.

Peter James, managing director of Movision Entertainment, which has produced 16 British-made films in recent years, including the soon-to-be released "Merchant of Venice", said while the effect of the Revenue's clamp down would not Be "devastating", it could drive many independent film-makers overseas.

Industry observers said on Thursday the Revenue's move was likely to confuse investors, who have been accustomed to the benefits of double-dipping.

We can learn from the first three paragraphs that ______.

A．film-makers turn to the government for financial help

B．several actions have been taken to stop tax evasion

C．officials have phoned up many film makers to protest

D．more tax relief is needed to keep the industry going

The Inland Revenue on Thursday accused the British film industry of abusing government aid, with every production of recent years deliberately over-claiming tax relief.

Revenue officials called in about 20 members of the film industry and warned them of severe consequences if the "exploitation" of tax-relief schemes did not immediately stop.

The move, which affects the including low- to high-budget film-makers and financiers, is the latest in a series of attempts by the Revenue to clamp down on tax loopholes in an attempt to raise more money for the Exchequer.

But the film industry responded on Thursday night, saying the Revenue could drive productions overseas and would confuse investors.

A series of tax relief schemes, introduced in 1997, enables those involved in the financing of qualifying British-made films to claim the costs of production against future income. The schemes have become popular with investors seeking a tax shelter, with an estimated ￡400m invested in the schemes in 1997 rising to about ￡2bn last year.

But the Revenue said the industry was exploiting rules on tax relief by "double-dipping", that is, by claiming relief more than once against a single piece of expenditure. While not illegal, the Revenue said, the industry was "not playing fair". It said double-dipping was "against the spirit" of legislation designed to encourage investment in the British film industry.

The Revenue said the practice of double-dipping was "virtually universal", with "every qualifying film it had seen financed on the basis of double-dipping". It warned it would "take all steps to counter such abuse including, where necessary, advising ministers on introducing legislation to put matters beyond doubt".

"Both the Revenue and the government are becoming increasingly exasperated at the extent to which some parts of the industry are exploiting the film reliefs," the Revenue said. "The government remains committed to encouraging film production in the UK through use of the reliefs in the way in which the legislation allows—but this does not extend to deliberate exploitation of those reliefs."

Large film financiers said on Thursday night that the Revenue's action could undermine growth prospects for the British film industry.

Peter James, managing director of Movision Entertainment, which has produced 16 British-made films in recent years, including the soon-to-be released "Merchant of Venice", said while the effect of the Revenue's clamp down would not be "devastating", it could drive many independent film-makers overseas.

Industry observers said on Thursday the Revenue's move was likely to confuse investors, who have been accustomed to the benefits of double-dipping.

We can learn from the first three paragraphs that______.

A．film-makers turn to the government for financial help

B．several actions have been taken to stop tax evasion

C．officials have phoned up many film-makers to protest

D．more tax relief is needed to keep the industry going

The goal of an argument is to abuse the audience.()

参考答案：错误

The writer of this passage would probably be in favor of

A．bus drivers who weren't reckless

B．driving alone

C．a television set on the bus

D．no billboards along the road

It seemed to me, and still does, that the system of American business often produces wrong, immoral and irresponsible decisions, even though the personal morality of the people running the businesses is often above reproach. The system has a different morality as a group than the people do as individuals, which permits it to willfully produce ineffective or dangerous products, deal dictatorially and often unfairly with suppliers, pay bribes for business, abrogate the rights of employees by demanding blind loyalty to management or tamper with the democratic process of government through illegal political contributions.

I am not a psychologist, so I can't offer a professional opinion on what happens to the freedom of individual minds when they are blended into the group management through process of business. But my private analysis is this: morality has to do with people. If an action is hewed primarily from the perspective of its effect on people, it is put into the moral realm.

Business in America, however, is impersonal. This is particularly true of large American multi-national corporations. They are viewed by their employees and publics as faceless. They have no personality. The ultimate measure of success and failure of these businesses is not their effect on people but rather their earnings per share of stock. If earnings are high, the business is considered good. If they are low or in the red ink, it is considered a failure. The first question to greet any business proposal is how will it effect profits? People do not enter the equation of a business decisions except to the extent that the effect on them will hurt or enhance earnings per share. In such a completely impersonal context, business decisions of questionable personal morality are easily justified. The unwavering devotion to the bottom line brings this about, and the American public until now has been more than willing to accept this. When someone is forced into early retirement in a management power-play or supplier is cheated out of sale by under-the-table dealings, the public reaction is generally, "Oh, well. That's business." And management's reaction is often, "it's what's on the bottom line that counts." A person who shoots and kills an other is sentenced to life in prison. A business man who makes a defective product which kills people may get a nominal fine or a verbal slap on the hands, ff he is ever brought to trial at all.

In the author's view, if an American business makes an immoral decision as a group, the man aging individuals ______.

A．may be excused from trial

B．are often above reproach

C．may differ in interpreting morality

D．should not escape responsibility

In order to improve the performance of a network server, you need to select bus or local bus. The appropriate local bus is(69).

A．VESA

B．ISA

C．EISA

D．PCI

In order to improve the performance of a network server, you need to select bus or local bus.The appropriate local bus is

A．VESA

B．PCI

C．EISA

D．ISA

●In order to improve the performance of a network server，you need to select bus or local bus．The appropriate local bus is (69) ．

(69) A．VESA

B．ISA

C．EISA

D．PCI