刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

  States will be able to force more people to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday that will leave shoppers with lighter wallets but is a big financial win for states.

  The Supreme Court’s opinion Thursday overruled a pair of decades-old decisions that states said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually. The decisions made it more difficult for states to collect sales tax on certain online purchases.

  The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a customer’s purchase to a state where the business didn’t have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn’t have to collect sales tax for the state. Customers were generally responsible for paying the sales tax to the state themselves if they weren’t charged it, but most didn’t realize they owed it and few paid.

  Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the previous decisions were flawed. “Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States,” he wrote in an opinion joined by four other justices. Kennedy wrote that the rule “limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.”

  The ruling is a victory for big chains with a presence in many states, since they usually collect sales tax on online purchases already. Now, rivals will be charging sales tax where they hadn’t before. Big chains have been collecting sales tax nationwide because they typically have physical stores in whatever state a purchase is being shipped to. Amazon.com, with its network of warehouses, also collects sales tax in every state that charges it, though third-party sellers who use the site don’t have to.

  Until now, many sellers that have a physical presence in only a single state or a few states have been able to avoid charging sales taxes when they ship to addresses outside those states. Sellers that use eBay and Etsy, which provide platforms for smaller sellers, also haven’t been collecting sales tax nationwide. Under the ruling Thursday, states can pass laws requiring out-of-state sellers to collect the state’s sales tax from customers and send it to the state.

  Retail trade groups praised the ruling, saying it levels the playing field for local and online businesses. The losers, said retail analyst Neil Saunders, are online-only retailers, especially smaller ones. Those retailers may face headaches complying with various state sales tax laws. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council advocacy group said in a statement, “Small businesses and Internet entrepreneurs are not well served at all by this decision.”

40. In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thursday, the author ________.

A
gives a factual account of it and discusses its consequences
B
describes the long and complicated process of its making
C
presents its main points with conflicting views on them
D
cites some cases related to it and analyzes their implications
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

A

解析:

答案精析:本题需要根据全文作答。文章开篇直接引出最高法院通过新的裁决,征收网上消费的营业税。第二段介绍之前的政策及其后果不利于州政府。第三段描述原来判决涉及到的案例。第四段列举了法官安东尼·肯尼迪的观点,指出以前的裁决有弊端。第五段至第七段描述了新裁决对大型连锁店、各州政府、零售行业等的影响。可见,作者先对最高法院星期四的裁决进行了客观描述,然后说明了它的影响,本题选A。

错项排除: B、C两项属于无中生有,原文并未提及新裁决的过程是否漫长,以及新裁决相互矛盾的观点,故排除B、C。原文第三段首句出现cases,但这里说的是“两项已有几十年历史的裁决”,而对大型连锁店、各州政府、零售行业有影响的是最高法院星期四的裁决,两者无关联,D错。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:40. In dealing with the Supreme Court decision Thu

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share