Questões de Concurso
Sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês
Foram encontradas 13.083 questões
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
BACEN
Provas:
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 1 - Prova 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos
|
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos |
Q2254326
Inglês
Texto associado
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses (for example, http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for example, [email protected]). The delegates' argument is that unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why should the United States continue to control the registration of French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that ....51....
The job of assigning domain names offers huge opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline (dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet. Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would be caught between the different visions of its members: on the one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side, open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently political. You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so. But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Segundo o texto, Henry Ford
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
BACEN
Provas:
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 1 - Prova 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos
|
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos |
Q2254271
Inglês
Texto associado
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for
a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates
want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over
the assignment of Web site addresses (for example,
http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for
example, [email protected]). The delegates' argument is that
unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no
more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why
should the United States continue to control the registration of
French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the
registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's
historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and
dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be
avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run
efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that ....51....
The job of assigning domain names offers huge
opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to
keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline
(dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can
allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of
U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not
occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet
might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International
Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a
leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record
of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would
be caught between the different visions of its members: on the
one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China
that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side,
open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of
vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently
political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the
principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users
from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child
pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so.
But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that
sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain
names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take
offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit
card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to
regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of
the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China.
The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest
control of the Internet from the United States, because they
already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No geral, o texto
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
BACEN
Provas:
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 1 - Prova 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos
|
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos |
Q2254269
Inglês
Texto associado
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for
a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates
want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over
the assignment of Web site addresses (for example,
http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for
example, [email protected]). The delegates' argument is that
unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no
more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why
should the United States continue to control the registration of
French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the
registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's
historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and
dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be
avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run
efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that ....51....
The job of assigning domain names offers huge
opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to
keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline
(dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can
allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of
U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not
occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet
might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International
Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a
leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record
of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would
be caught between the different visions of its members: on the
one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China
that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side,
open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of
vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently
political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the
principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users
from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child
pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so.
But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that
sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain
names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take
offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit
card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to
regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of
the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China.
The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest
control of the Internet from the United States, because they
already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
Segundo o texto, a escolha de um órgão supervisor
multilateral da Internet poderia tornar o registro de domínio
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
BACEN
Provas:
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 1 - Prova 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos
|
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos |
Q2254268
Inglês
Texto associado
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for
a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates
want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over
the assignment of Web site addresses (for example,
http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for
example, [email protected]). The delegates' argument is that
unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no
more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why
should the United States continue to control the registration of
French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the
registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's
historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and
dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be
avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run
efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that ....51....
The job of assigning domain names offers huge
opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to
keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline
(dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can
allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of
U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not
occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet
might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International
Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a
leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record
of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would
be caught between the different visions of its members: on the
one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China
that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side,
open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of
vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently
political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the
principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users
from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child
pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so.
But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that
sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain
names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take
offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit
card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to
regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of
the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China.
The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest
control of the Internet from the United States, because they
already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
In the third paragraph, such abuses have not occurred
means that
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
BACEN
Provas:
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 1 - Prova 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos
|
FCC - 2006 - BACEN - Analista do Banco Central - Área 2 - Conhecimentos Específicos |
Q2254264
Inglês
Texto associado
The Internet at Risk
Some 12,000 people convened last week in Tunisia for
a United Nations conference about the Internet. Many delegates
want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over
the assignment of Web site addresses (for example,
http://www.washington-%20post.com/ ) and e-mail accounts (for
example, [email protected]). The delegates' argument is that
unilateral U.S. control over these domain names reflects no
more than the historical accident of the Internet's origins. Why
should the United States continue to control the registration of
French and Chinese Internet addresses? It doesn't control the
registration of French and Chinese cars, whatever Henry Ford's
historic role in democratizing travel was.
The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and
dangerous in practice. In an ideal world, unilateralism should be
avoided. But in an imperfect world, unilateral solutions that run
efficiently can be better than multilateral ones that ....51....
The job of assigning domain names offers huge
opportunities for abuse. ....52.... controls this function can decide to
keep certain types of individuals or organizations offline
(dissidents or opposition political groups, for example). Or it can
allow them on in exchange for large fees. The striking feature of
U.S. oversight of the Internet is that such abuses have not
occurred.
It's possible that a multilateral overseer of the Internet
might be just as efficient. But the ponderous International
Telecommunication Union, the U.N. body that would be a
leading candidate to take over the domain registry, has a record
of resisting innovation - including the advent of the Internet.
Moreover, a multilateral domain-registering body would
be caught between the different visions of its members: on the
one side, autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and China
that want to restrict access to the Internet; on the other side,
open societies that want low barriers to entry. These clashes of
vision would probably make multilateral regulation inefficiently
political.
You may say that this is a fair price to pay to uphold the
principle of sovereignty. If a country wants to keep certain users
from registering domain names (Nazi groups, child
pornographers, criminals), then perhaps it has a right to do so.
But the clinching argument is that countries can exercise that
sovereignty to a reasonable degree without controlling domain
names. They can order Internet users in their territory to take
offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit
card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to
regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of
the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China.
The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest
control of the Internet from the United States, because they
already have it.
(Adapted from Washington Post, November 21, 2005; A14)
No primeiro parágrafo, reflects no more than the historical
accident of the Internet's origins significa
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
SEFAZ-MS
Prova:
FGV - 2006 - SEFAZ-MS - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação - 1º Prova |
Q1389270
Inglês
Texto associado
(abridged from Next Frontiers in Newsweek, April 3, 2006)
The main point in paragraph 4 is
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
SEFAZ-MS
Prova:
FGV - 2006 - SEFAZ-MS - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação - 1º Prova |
Q1389269
Inglês
Texto associado
(abridged from Next Frontiers in Newsweek, April 3, 2006)
According to lines 18 to 24,
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
SEFAZ-MS
Prova:
FGV - 2006 - SEFAZ-MS - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação - 1º Prova |
Q1389267
Inglês
Texto associado
(abridged from Next Frontiers in Newsweek, April 3, 2006)
From paragraph 3 we infer that
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
SEFAZ-MS
Prova:
FGV - 2006 - SEFAZ-MS - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação - 1º Prova |
Q1389264
Inglês
Texto associado
(abridged from Next Frontiers in Newsweek, April 3, 2006)
From paragraph 2 we infer that all the following statements
are correct, except
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
SEFAZ-MS
Prova:
FGV - 2006 - SEFAZ-MS - Analista de Tecnologia da Informação - 1º Prova |
Q1389261
Inglês
Texto associado
(abridged from Next Frontiers in Newsweek, April 3, 2006)
According to paragraph 1, Google, Yahoo and others
Q1184889
Inglês
After nearly a decade of trying, Wal-Mart never cracked the country – failing to become the all-in-one shopping destination for Germans that it is for so many millions of Americans. Wal-Mart's problems are not limited to Germany. The retail giant has struggled in countries like South Korea and Japan as it discovered that its formula for success – low prices, zealous inventory control and a large array of merchandise – did not translate to markets with their own discount chains and shoppers with different habits.
Some of Wal-Mart's problems stem from being a uniquely powerful American enterprise trying to impose its values around the world. At Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., however, the message from these missteps is now registering loud and clear.
Among other things, Wal-Mart now cares (.....) whether its foreign stores carry the name derived from its founder, Sam Walton, as the German Wal-Marts do. Seventy percent of WalMart's international sales come from outlets with names like Asda in Britain, Seiyu in Japan or Bompreço in Brazil. Far from being chastened by its setbacks, Wal-Mart is forging ahead with an aggressive program of foreign acquisitions. In a single week last fall, Wal-Mart completed the purchase of the Sonae chain in Brazil, bought a controlling stake in Seiyu of Japan, and became a partner in the Carcho chain in Central America.
Starting from scratch 14 years ago, Wal-Mart International [TO GROW] into a $63 billion business. It is the fastest-growing part of Wal-Mart, with nearly 30 percent sales growth in June, compared with the same month last year. Even subtracting one-time gains from acquisitions, it grew at nearly 12 percent, about double the rate of Wal-Mart's American stores.
Sustaining that pace is critical for Wal-Mart, because high fuel prices have helped sap the buying power of Americans. In June, store traffic in its home market declined. Wal-Mart estimated that its sales in the United States in stores open at least one year would increase only 1 percent to 3 percent in July.
Another problem that has afflicted Wal-Mart in several countries is its inability to compete with established discounters. The obvious lesson is to try to bulk up. In Brazil, Wal-Mart opened only 25 stores in its first decade there and struggled to compete against bigger local rivals. Then, in 2004, it bought Bompreço, giving it a presence in the country's poor, but fastgrowing, northeast.
Wal-Mart did not change the names of the stores, which range from neighborhood grocers to large American-style hypermarkets. But with 295 stores in Brazil, Wal-Mart now ranks third in the market, after Carrefour of France and the market leader, Companhia Brasileira de Distribução.
(Adapted from an article by Mark Landler and Michael Barbaro published in the New York Times, August 2, 2006)
Do trecho the message from these missteps is now registering loud and clear, no 2° parágrafo, infere-se que a Wal-Mart
Some of Wal-Mart's problems stem from being a uniquely powerful American enterprise trying to impose its values around the world. At Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., however, the message from these missteps is now registering loud and clear.
Among other things, Wal-Mart now cares (.....) whether its foreign stores carry the name derived from its founder, Sam Walton, as the German Wal-Marts do. Seventy percent of WalMart's international sales come from outlets with names like Asda in Britain, Seiyu in Japan or Bompreço in Brazil. Far from being chastened by its setbacks, Wal-Mart is forging ahead with an aggressive program of foreign acquisitions. In a single week last fall, Wal-Mart completed the purchase of the Sonae chain in Brazil, bought a controlling stake in Seiyu of Japan, and became a partner in the Carcho chain in Central America.
Starting from scratch 14 years ago, Wal-Mart International [TO GROW] into a $63 billion business. It is the fastest-growing part of Wal-Mart, with nearly 30 percent sales growth in June, compared with the same month last year. Even subtracting one-time gains from acquisitions, it grew at nearly 12 percent, about double the rate of Wal-Mart's American stores.
Sustaining that pace is critical for Wal-Mart, because high fuel prices have helped sap the buying power of Americans. In June, store traffic in its home market declined. Wal-Mart estimated that its sales in the United States in stores open at least one year would increase only 1 percent to 3 percent in July.
Another problem that has afflicted Wal-Mart in several countries is its inability to compete with established discounters. The obvious lesson is to try to bulk up. In Brazil, Wal-Mart opened only 25 stores in its first decade there and struggled to compete against bigger local rivals. Then, in 2004, it bought Bompreço, giving it a presence in the country's poor, but fastgrowing, northeast.
Wal-Mart did not change the names of the stores, which range from neighborhood grocers to large American-style hypermarkets. But with 295 stores in Brazil, Wal-Mart now ranks third in the market, after Carrefour of France and the market leader, Companhia Brasileira de Distribução.
(Adapted from an article by Mark Landler and Michael Barbaro published in the New York Times, August 2, 2006)
Do trecho the message from these missteps is now registering loud and clear, no 2° parágrafo, infere-se que a Wal-Mart
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460762
Inglês
Texto associado
Avoidance and evasion compared: The United States example
The use of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion can vary depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, the term "tax evasion" (or, more precisely, "attempted tax evasion") generally consists of criminal conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the assessment or payment of a tax that is already legally owed at the time of the criminal conduct. (The term "assessment" is here used in the technical sense of a statutory assessment: the formal administrative act of a duly appointed employee of the Internal Revenue Service who records the tax on the books of the United States Treasury after certain administrative prerequisites have been met. In the case of Federal income tax, this act generally occurs after the close of the tax year - and usually after a tax return has been filed.)
By contrast, the term "tax avoidance" is used in the United States to describe lawful conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the creation of a tax liability. Tax evasion involves breaking the law; tax avoidance is using legal means to avoid owing tax in the first place. An evaded tax remains a tax legally owed. An avoided tax (in the U.S. sense) is a tax liability that has never existed. A simple example of tax avoidance in this sense is the situation where a business considers selling a particular asset at a huge gain but, after consulting with a tax adviser, decides not to [VERB] the sale. ......97...... no sale occurs, no gain is realized. The additional income tax liability that [TO GENERATE] by the inclusion of the gain on the sale in the computation of taxable income is simply not incurred, as there was no sale and no realized gain.
(Adapted from Wikipedia: en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Tax_evasion)
O texto pode ser sintetizado na seguinte oposição:
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460759
Inglês
Texto associado
Avoidance and evasion compared: The United States example
The use of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion can vary depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, the term "tax evasion" (or, more precisely, "attempted tax evasion") generally consists of criminal conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the assessment or payment of a tax that is already legally owed at the time of the criminal conduct. (The term "assessment" is here used in the technical sense of a statutory assessment: the formal administrative act of a duly appointed employee of the Internal Revenue Service who records the tax on the books of the United States Treasury after certain administrative prerequisites have been met. In the case of Federal income tax, this act generally occurs after the close of the tax year - and usually after a tax return has been filed.)
By contrast, the term "tax avoidance" is used in the United States to describe lawful conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the creation of a tax liability. Tax evasion involves breaking the law; tax avoidance is using legal means to avoid owing tax in the first place. An evaded tax remains a tax legally owed. An avoided tax (in the U.S. sense) is a tax liability that has never existed. A simple example of tax avoidance in this sense is the situation where a business considers selling a particular asset at a huge gain but, after consulting with a tax adviser, decides not to [VERB] the sale. ......97...... no sale occurs, no gain is realized. The additional income tax liability that [TO GENERATE] by the inclusion of the gain on the sale in the computation of taxable income is simply not incurred, as there was no sale and no realized gain.
(Adapted from Wikipedia: en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Tax_evasion)
A palavra que preenche corretamente a lacuna é
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460758
Inglês
Texto associado
Avoidance and evasion compared: The United States example
The use of the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion can vary depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, the term "tax evasion" (or, more precisely, "attempted tax evasion") generally consists of criminal conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the assessment or payment of a tax that is already legally owed at the time of the criminal conduct. (The term "assessment" is here used in the technical sense of a statutory assessment: the formal administrative act of a duly appointed employee of the Internal Revenue Service who records the tax on the books of the United States Treasury after certain administrative prerequisites have been met. In the case of Federal income tax, this act generally occurs after the close of the tax year - and usually after a tax return has been filed.)
By contrast, the term "tax avoidance" is used in the United States to describe lawful conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the creation of a tax liability. Tax evasion involves breaking the law; tax avoidance is using legal means to avoid owing tax in the first place. An evaded tax remains a tax legally owed. An avoided tax (in the U.S. sense) is a tax liability that has never existed. A simple example of tax avoidance in this sense is the situation where a business considers selling a particular asset at a huge gain but, after consulting with a tax adviser, decides not to [VERB] the sale. ......97...... no sale occurs, no gain is realized. The additional income tax liability that [TO GENERATE] by the inclusion of the gain on the sale in the computation of taxable income is simply not incurred, as there was no sale and no realized gain.
(Adapted from Wikipedia: en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Tax_evasion)
O verbo que substitui corretamente [VERB] é
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460757
Inglês
Texto associado
History of the Income Tax in the United States
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 18 62, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut.
The Act of 18 62 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner [TO GIVE] the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 18 68 , Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 18 94 and 18 95. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981 , Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
(Adapted from http://w w w .infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html)
Ainda segundo o texto,
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460756
Inglês
Texto associado
History of the Income Tax in the United States
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 18 62, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut.
The Act of 18 62 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner [TO GIVE] the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 18 68 , Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 18 94 and 18 95. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981 , Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
(Adapted from http://w w w .infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html)
Segundo o texto, nos Estados Unidos,
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460755
Inglês
Texto associado
History of the Income Tax in the United States
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 18 62, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut.
The Act of 18 62 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner [TO GIVE] the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 18 68 , Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 18 94 and 18 95. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981 , Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
(Adapted from http://w w w .infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html)
Um sinônimo para offset, no texto, é
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460754
Inglês
Texto associado
History of the Income Tax in the United States
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 18 62, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut.
The Act of 18 62 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner [TO GIVE] the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 18 68 , Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 18 94 and 18 95. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981 , Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
(Adapted from http://w w w .infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html)
No texto, a expressão latter year refere-se a
Ano: 2006
Banca:
FCC
Órgão:
SEFAZ-SP
Prova:
FCC - 2006 - SEFAZ-SP - Agente Fiscal de Tributos Estaduais - Prova 1 |
Q460753
Inglês
Texto associado
History of the Income Tax in the United States
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 18 62, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut.
The Act of 18 62 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner [TO GIVE] the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
In 18 68 , Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 18 94 and 18 95. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981 , Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
(Adapted from http://w w w .infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html)
A forma correta de [TO GIVE] no texto é
Ano: 2006
Banca:
ESAF
Órgão:
SUSEP
Prova:
ESAF - 2006 - SUSEP - Analista Técnico - Tecnologia da Informação - Prova 1 |
Q394244
Inglês
The Tipping Point
Source: Newsweek Special Edition Dec 2005 – Feb 2006 (Adapted)
The world of tomorrow is not a world based on a supra- structure of nation-states. It is a world where business is a major shaper not only of economic developments but also of social developments; it is also a world where civil society feels deeply engaged. The only way to foster progress is to knit together the best minds, the most powerful leaders and the truly committed people to jointly define the problems, jointly propose innovative solutions and jointly engage in collaborative actions.
The text details
Source: Newsweek Special Edition Dec 2005 – Feb 2006 (Adapted)
The world of tomorrow is not a world based on a supra- structure of nation-states. It is a world where business is a major shaper not only of economic developments but also of social developments; it is also a world where civil society feels deeply engaged. The only way to foster progress is to knit together the best minds, the most powerful leaders and the truly committed people to jointly define the problems, jointly propose innovative solutions and jointly engage in collaborative actions.
The text details
Conheça nossos planos