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.
The Revenue’s last resort in solving the problem seems to be ______.

A:removing tax relief B:protesting more loudly C:warning last time D:making new laws

Text 3
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 i 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.

The Revenue's last resort in solving the problem seems to be（）

A:removing tax relief B:protesting more loudly C:warning last time D:making new laws

Text 3
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 i 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

Text 3 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 i 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.

The Revenue's last resort in solving the problem seems to be （）

A:removing tax relief B:protesting more loudly C:warning last time D:making new laws

Text 3 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 i 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.

The Revenue’s last resort in solving the problem seems to be （）

A:removing tax relief B:protesting more loudly C:warning last time D:making new laws

The new global satellite communications systems will offer three kinds of service, which may overlap in many different kinds of receivers.
VOICE. Satellite telephones will be able to make calls from anywhere on the earth to anywhere else. That could make them especially useful to remote, third world villages (some of which already use stationary satellite telephones), explorers and disaster-relief teams. Today’s mobile telephones depend on earth-bound transmitters, whose technical standards vary from country to country. So business travelers cannot use their mobile phones on international trips Satellite telephones would make that possible.
MESSAGING. Satellite massagers have the same global coverage as satellite telephones, but carry text alone, which could be useful for those with laptop computers. Equipped with a small screen like today’s papers, satellite messages will also receive short messages.
TRACKING. Voice and messaging systems will also tell their users where they are to within a few hundred meters. Combined with the messaging service, the location service could help rescue teams to find stranded adventurers, the police to find stolen cars, ex- porters to follow the progress of cargoes, and haulage companies to check that drivers are not detouring to the pub. America’s military Global Positioning System(GPS) satellites will provide better positioning information to anyone who has a receiver for their signals, but GPS does not carry messages, so such a receiver cannot be used on its own for tracking or rescue. By the mid-1990s, GPS receivers will be able to tell people where they are to within 70 meters anywhere in the world, and to within a meter or so in areas where the service is supplemented by ground-based transmitter.

Global satellite communications systems will be useful to （）

A:laptop computer users B:remote villages C:disaster-relief teams D:all above