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)

Your answers to questions 33 to 37 must be based
on the text below, which is entitled "Young, liberal
and in command":

Young, liberal and in command
Source: www.economist.co.uk
April 16, 2004 (Adapted)

On Thursday April 15th, the challengers won a
crucial battle in their bid to overturn South Korea's
conservative, elitist and business-driven political
system. . (1) the country's voters . (1.1) able to
choose their leaders freely since the late 1980s, many
of them, especially younger ones, still consider their
brand of democracy to be corrupt, outdated and unfair.
Many of the discontented admit . (2) enjoyed the
comforts that decades of market-friendly policies and
high growth have delivered. But they resent the . (3)
and . (3.1) dominance of giant family-controlled
business conglomerates, known as chaebol. Their
feelings towards the United States, a crucial ally, range
from ambivalent to hostile, and they would rather . (4)
with North Korean threats by placating its prickly regime
than by standing up to it. And now, they have convinced
mainstream voters to let them . (5) the country for the
next four years.

Analyze the following grammatical alternatives in order
to choose the appropriate one to fill in each of the
numbered gaps:

The hard cell

Thanks to politics, stem cell research in the United States is suffering. But not so in Sweden, which is poised to capture what could be the biggest new market to hit biotech in a decade.

By Stephan Herrera

February 13, 2003

New York, January 1, 2006:

Sweden announces that one of its biotechnology companies is the first in the world to enter clinical trials with a new drug that could cure Alzheimer's disease. Four years ago this type of research was all but stopped in the United States by political and ethical questions − which is ...61... Sweden now seems in the best position to capture a $25 billion market.

        Any day now, the U.S. Congress is expected to pass a sweeping new law that could dramatically inhibit researchers from working with stem cells taken from human embryos. Such cells, which can be used to grow a whole host of new cells and organs, could fundamentally change the way we treat heretofore intractable maladies like Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cancer, stroke, liver failure, and heart disease. The only problem is that these cells by definition are derived from human embryos, many of which are cloned or come from unused fetuses collected at fertility clinics. The argument, from a certain segment of the American political spectrum, is that ...62... methods are morally wrong. They are ...63... a form of abortion or an activity that could eventually lead to human cloning.

             Those working in stem cell research say the short-term effect of the legislation will be to further chill all forms of scientific inquiry and commercialization efforts in the field. Entrepreneurs and investors are already eschewing such research − in large part because of the additional uncertainty and risk that politics introduce.

         Of the nearly 50 private stem cell companies in the United States, only a handful are still viable. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Sweden has avoided many of the political and ethical quagmires surrounding this type of research. It currently has 40 private stem cell companies, a number that's growing. Sweden's leading research universities have 32 percent of the world's stem cell inventory, close on the heels of the United States' 35 percent.

          Sweden, say analysts, is now in the best position to capture a worldwide market for drugs based on stem cell therapies that could grow to $25 billion in the next three to five years − nearly equal to the whole biotech industry at present. This estimate doesn't even address the market for stem cells capable of repairing damaged vital organs like the brain, heart, and kidneys. If the United States offers an object lesson of what can happen when scientific inquiry and investment capital fall victim to politics, Sweden and its leading stem cell startup, NeuroNova, offer the opposite example. How odd that the United States, which for generations has been the envy of the world for its progressive views of science and commercialization, should now have a biomedical climate chillier than a Swedish winter.

         One company feeling a lot of pain is StemCells, which at first glance seems to have it all: founding scientists include Stanford's Dr. Weissman and Fred Gage of the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. An equally well-regarded expert in the treatment of Alzheimer's, Dr. Gage spent five years in Sweden as a researcher and now sits on a national committee on stem cell research there. The firm's chairman is Roger Perlmutter, Amgen's head of research.

       Yet over the past two years, none of management's efforts to help investors and even critics reconsider the stem cell field have worked. At press time, the stock was thinly traded and sitting in the neighborhood of 50 cents. With less than $15 million in cash, the company likely won't exist at this time next year. (CEO Martin McGlynn, who joined the firm in January 2001, would not talk to Red Herring, despite repeated efforts.)       

      Some observers on Wall Street are asking, If StemCells can't make it, who can? Geron, the only other publicly held stem cell firm to speak of, is in a fix, too. The company's stock price is also moribund, at $3.85 per share. Thanks to some capital infusions a few years ago, when money came easy, Geron still has $40 million on hand, but by the end of next year, that too will likely be gone. Once a media darling, Geron focuses on diagnostic tests and drugs derived from stem cells, a strategy that's not going well. For the nine months ended last September, revenue fell 68 percent to $955,000 and net loss widened 18 percent to $26.7 million. The company's financials were also hit hard after it terminated an agreement with Pharmacia and acquired research technology from Lynx Therapeutics, which Geron bought in a desperate attempt to be seen as something more than just a stem cell company.

     The situation is quite different, however, for Sweden's NeuroNova, which has 30 academic partners and a staff of 20. NeuroNova is working on ways to inject stem cells into the human brain to trigger a process called neurogenesis (the growth of new neural cells), which could combat diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and even schizophrenia.

      If NeuroNova is the first to develop a drug capable of treating one of several central nervous system disorders − by far the most lucrative after heart disease products − it will have done so not because it raised more money or got more media buzz than the rest. It will have succeeded because the science is solid, and academe, government, and the investment community are supportive. Meanwhile, the United States will look on with envy and wonder how it, a country known for its entrepreneurial innovation, ever got so short-sighted.

(Adapted from http://www.redherring.com/investor/2003/02/biotech021303.html)