量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

甲公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。2018年1月20日以其拥有的一项专利技术（符合免征增值税条件）与乙公司生产的一批商品交换。交换日，甲公司换出专利技术的成本为100万元，累计摊销为20万元，已计提减值准备30万元，公允价值无法可靠计量；换入商品的成本为50万元，未计提存货跌价准备，公允价值为80万元，增值税税额为13.6万元，甲公司将其作为存货核算；甲公司另向乙公司支付20万元补价。该非货币性资产交换具有商业实质，不考虑其他因素，甲公司对该交易应确认的收益为___万元。

A企业以其用于经营出租的一幢公寓楼，与B企业同样用于经营出租的一幢公寓楼进行交换，两幢公寓楼的租期、每期租金，及租金总额均相等。其中A企业用于交换的公寓楼是租给一家财务信用状况比较良好的企业用作职工宿舍，B企业用于交换的公寓楼是租给散户使用。则下列关于商业实质的，正确的是___。

具有商业实质且以公允价值计量的非货币性资产交换，在换出库存商品且其公允价值包含增值税的情况下，下列说法正确的是___。

M公司以一项无形资产交换N公司的一项管理用固定资产。M公司换出无形资产的账面原值为3600万元，累计摊销为1800万元，公允价值为2000万元，另以银行存款支付换入固定资产的运输费用20万元。M公司另向N公司支付补价10万元。假定该交易具有商业实质，不考虑其他税费影响。则M公司换入的固定资产的入账价值为___万元。

在不具有商业实质、不涉及补价的非货币性资产交换中，确定换入资产入账价值时不应考虑的因素是___。

香河公司以一台A设备换入大兴公司的一台B设备。A设备的账面原价为100万元，已计提折旧22万元，已计提减值准备8万元，公允价值为120万元。B设备的账面原价为80万元，已计提折旧7万元，已计提减值准备3万元。假定香河公司和大兴公司的交换不具有商业实质，不考虑增值税等相关税费的影响。香河公司换入B设备时影响利润总额的金额为___万元。

甲公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。甲公司以一台生产经营用固定资产（动产）换入乙公司的一项交易性金融资产。换出固定资产的账面原价为1200万元，已计提折旧50万元，未计提减值准备，公允价值和计税价格均为1300万元；交易性金融资产的账面价值为1271万元，未计提减值准备，公允价值为1300万元；乙公司另外向甲公司支付补价100万元。甲公司为换入交易性金融资产支付相关交易费用5万元。假定该非货币性资产交换不具有商业实质。则甲公司换入交易性金融资产的入账价值为___万元。

2018年1月1日甲公司将一项交易性金融资产与一批存货和乙公司的一批重型设备进行交换。已知甲公司交易性金融资产的账面价值为100万元（其中成本为80万元，公允价值变动收益为20万元），公允价值为120万元；存货的成本为150万元，已计提存货跌价准备30万元，公允价值为180万元。乙公司重型设备的成本为240万元，公允价值为260万元。乙公司另向甲公司支付补价40万元。该项非货币性资产交换具有商业实质。不考虑增值税等其他因素的影响，甲公司换出资产影响当期损益的金额为___万元。

甲、乙公司为增值税一般纳税人，适用的增值税税率为17%。甲公司以一批账面价值为165万元，不含税公允价值（等于计税价格）为200万元的原材料和一台原价为235万元，已计提累计折旧100万元，不含税公允价值（等于计税价格）128万元的固定资产（设备）与乙公司的一项长期股权投资进项交换。长期股权投资的账面价值为240万元，公允价值为300万元。乙公司另支付甲公司银行存款83.76万元。该非货币性资产交换具有商业实质。乙公司取得的原材料和固定资产的入账价值分别为___万元。

甲公司欠乙公司600万元货款，到期日为2018年10月30日。甲公司因财务困难，经协商于2018年11月15日与乙公司签订债务重组协议，协议规定甲公司以价值550万元的商品抵偿欠乙公司上述全部债务。2018年11月20日，乙公司收到该商品并验收入库。2018年11月22日办理了有关债务解除手续。该债务重组的重组日为___。

甲公司因购货原因于2018年1月1日产生应付乙公司账款100万元，货款偿还期限为3个月。2018年4月1日，甲公司发生财务困难，无法偿还到期债务，经与乙公司协商进行债务重组。双方同意：以甲公司的两辆小汽车抵偿债务。这两辆小汽车原值为100万元，已提累计折旧20万元，公允价值为50万元。假定上述资产均未计提减值准备，不考虑相关税费。则债务人甲公司计入“资产处置损益”和“营业外收入”的金额分别为___万元。

2018年2月10日，远洋公司销售一批材料给长江公司，同时收到长江公司签发并承兑的一张面值100 000元、年利率7％、6个月到期还本付息的票据。当年8月10日，长江公司发生财务困难，无法兑现票据，经双方协议，远洋公司同意长江公司用一台设备抵偿该应收票据。这台设备的历史成本为120 000元，累计折旧为30 000元，清理费用等1 000元，计提的减值准备为9 000元，公允价值为90 000元。远洋公司未对债权计提坏账准备。假定不考虑其他相关税费。长江公司应确认的债务重组收益和资产转让损益分别为___元。

2018年2月20日，正保公司销售一批材料给大华公司，同时收到大华公司签发并承兑的一张面值100 000元，年利率7%、期限为6个月、到期还本付息的票据。8月20日，大华公司发生财务困难，无法兑现票据，经双方协议，正保公司同意大华公司以其普通股抵偿该票据。假设普通股的面值为1元，大华公司以5 000股抵偿该项债权，股票市价为每股10元。大华公司应确认的“资本公积”为___元。

以债权转为股权的，受让股权的入账价值为___。

2018年1月10日，因B公司出现严重财务困难，无力支付所欠A公司的货款1 000万元，双方达成债务重组协议，协议约定，B公司以一项生产经营设备偿还全部债务。该项设备是B公司2015年购入的，账面原价为800万元，累计折旧60万元，未计提减值准备，债务重组日公允价值为720万元(不含增值税)。A公司已对该项债权计提坏账准备30万元。假定不考虑其他相关税费，A公司取得固定资产的入账价值是___万元。

甲公司持有乙公司的应收票据面值为30 000元，票据到期时，累计利息为1 000元，乙公司支付了利息，同时由于乙公司财务陷入困境，甲公司同意将乙公司的票据期限延长两年，并减少本金8 000元，则乙公司计入营业外收入的金额是___元。

在债务人发生财务困难的情况下，下列属于债务重组的是___。

以修改其他债务条件进行债务重组的，如果债务重组协议中附有或有应付金额的，该或有应付金额最终没有发生的，应___。

甲公司因乙公司发生严重财务困难，预计难以全额收回乙公司所欠货款240万元。经协商，乙公司以银行存款180万元结清了全部债务。甲公司对该项应收账款已计提坏账准备24万元。假定不考虑其他因素，债务重组日甲公司应确认的损失为___万元。

2018年6月11日，M公司就应收B公司货款2 340 000元（已计提坏账准备80 000元）与其进行债务重组。经协商，M公司同意豁免B公司债务340 000元，延长债务偿还期限6个月，每月按2％收取利息，如果从7月份起公司盈利则每月再加收1％的利息，12月11日B公司应将本金和利息一起偿还。在债务重组日M公司应确认的重组损失为___元。

下列各项以非现金资产清偿全部债务的债务重组中，属于债务人债务重组利得的是___。

在以现金、非现金资产和修改债务条件混合重组方式清偿债务的情况下，以下处理的先后顺序正确的是___。

2018年1月3日，甲公司因购买材料而欠乙公司购货款及税款合计2 500万元，由于甲公司无法偿付应付账款，2018年5月2日经双方协商同意，甲公司以一栋自用写字楼作为对价支付给乙公司用以偿还该债务。该房产的账面价值为2 000万元(其中成本为2 500万元，累计折旧为500万元)。2018年6月1日相关手续办理完毕，当日公允价值（计税价格）为2 100万元，增值税率11%。乙公司已计提坏账准备为10万元，乙公司收到房产后继续确认为固定资产。下列有关债务重组会计处理表述中不正确的是___。

恒通公司应收大华公司账款的账面余额为585万元，由于大华公司财务困难无法偿付应付账款，经双方协商同意，大华公司以90万元现金和其200万股普通股偿还债务，大华公司普通股每股面值1元，市价2.2元，恒通公司取得投资后作为可供出售金融资产核算，恒通公司对该应收账款提取坏账准备50万元。则恒通公司债务重组损失和金融资产的成本分别是___万元。

下列有关债务重组的说法中，正确的是___。

A公司销售给B公司一批库存商品，A公司收到B公司签发的商业承兑汇票，面值825万元。到期日由于B公司财务困难，经修改债务条件后，A公司同意将此债务延期1年，并按8％的利率计算延期1年的利息，债务本金减到700万元，免除剩余债务，但附或有条件，如果B企业在未来1年盈利，原免除的债务也一并归还，如果亏损则不再归还。A公司计提坏账准备50万元。则A公司确认的债务重组损失是___万元。

2018年2月20日，深广公司销售一批材料给红星公司，同时收到红星公司签发并承兑的一张面值100 000元，年利率7%、六月期、到期还本付息的票据。8月20日，红星公司发生财务困难，无法兑现票据，经双方协议，深广公司同意红星公司以其普通股抵偿该票据。假设普通股的面值为1元，红星公司以10 000股抵偿该项债权，股票市价为每股9.6元，印花税税率为4‰。红星公司应确认的债务重组收益为___元。

以修改其他债务条件进行债务重组的，如债务重组协议中附有或有收益的，债权人应将其或有收益___。

2017年6月1日，甲公司销售一批商品给乙公司，货款总额(含增值税税额)为1 000万元。合同约定，乙公司应于2017年12月31日前支付上述货款。由于资金周转困难，乙公司到期不能偿付货款。2018年3月1日，经协商，甲公司与乙公司达成如下债务重组协议：乙公司以一批产品和一台生产设备偿还全部债务。乙公司用于偿债的产品成本为340万元，未计提存货跌价准备，公允价值(计税价格)为400万元；用于偿债的设备系2011年购入的，原价为600万元，已计提折旧200万元，已计提减值准备50万元，公允价值为300万元。甲公司和乙公司适用的增值税税率均为17％。假定不考虑增值税以外的其他相关税费，则该项债务重组对乙公司2015年利润总额的影响金额为___万元。

甲公司应收乙公司的账款2 100万元已逾期，经协商决定进行债务重组。债务重组的内容是：①乙公司以银行存款偿付甲公司账款300万元；②乙公司以一项无形资产（专利权）和一项股权投资偿付所欠部分账款。乙公司该项无形资产的账面价值为700万元，公允价值为800万元；股权投资的账面价值为850万元，公允价值为900万元。假定不考虑相关税费，则该债务重组中甲公司产生的债务重组损失金额为___万元。

A公司应偿还B公司货款及增值税款共计140.4万元。B公司对此项债权提取了15万元的坏账准备。由于A公司管理不善出现财务困难，双方公司协商进行债务重组，B公司同意 A公司以账面余额60万元的存货进行清偿，A公司对该项存货提取了2万元的存货跌价准备，该批存货的公允价值为100万元。双方公司的增值税率均为17%。B公司重组损失是___万元。

2018年1月3日，甲公司因购买材料而欠乙公司购货款及税款合计2 500万元，由于甲公司无法偿付应付账款，2018年5月2日经双方协商同意，甲公司以一栋自用写字楼作为对价支付给乙公司用以偿还该债务。该房产的账面价值为2 000万元(其中成本为2 500万元，累计折旧为500万元)。2018年6月1日相关手续办理完毕，当日公允价值（计税价格）为2 100万元，增值税率11&。乙公司已计提坏账准备为50万元，乙公司收到房产后继续确认为固定资产。下列甲公司债务重组会计处理表述中不正确的是___。

下列项目中，不会产生可抵扣暂时性差异的是___。

按照准则规定，下列各事项产生的暂时性差异中，不确认递延所得税的是___。

甲公司于2018年1月1日开始计提折旧的某项固定资产，其初始入账价值为500万元，使用年限为20年，采用年限平均法计提折旧，预计净残值为0。税法规定对于该项固定资产采用双倍余额递减法计提折旧，使用年限、预计净残值与会计估计相同。则2018年12月31日该项固定资产的计税基础为___万元。

甲公司2018年年末应收账款账面余额为800万元，已提坏账准备100万元，假定税法规定，已提坏账准备在实际发生损失前不得税前扣除。则2018年年末产生的暂时性差异为___。

甲公司2018年1月1日外购一项专利技术，其入账价值为240万元，甲公司账务处理中采用直线法计提摊销，预计使用年限为10年，预计净残值为0；税法中认定的摊销方法、预计使用年限和预计净残值与会计相同。2018年12月31日甲公司对该项专利技术计提减值准备20万元，则2018年12月31日甲公司该项专利技术的计税基础为___万元。

某制药企业于2017年12月31日以1 200万元购入一栋写字楼，作办公使用。税法对该写字楼采用直线法计提折旧，预计使用年限为20年，预计净残值为零。企业采用直线法计提折旧，预计办公楼的使用年限为30年。企业适用的所得税税率为25％，2018年期末该资产产生的所得税影响为___。

甲公司2018年8月20日取得一项交易性金融资产，其初始入账金额为120万元，2011年12月31日该项交易性金融资产的公允价值为123万元.则2018年12月31日该项交易性金融资产的计税基础为___万元。

S企业采用资产负债表债务法进行所得税核算，所得税税率为25％，该企业2018年度实现利润总额1 800万元，当年取得国债利息收入135万元，当期列入“财务费用”的借款费用包括高于银行同期利率而多支付的60万元，因违反税收法规支付罚款5万元，当期列入“销售费用”的折旧额包括计提的低于税法规定扣除金额为36万元。则2018年企业应交纳的所得税为___万元。