甲公司为居民企业, 主要从事不锈钢用品的生产和销售业务, 2019年有关经营情况如下: ( 1) 产品销售收入 800万元, 销售边角料收入 40万元, 接受捐赠收入 60万元, 国债利息收入 5万元。 ( 2) 实发合理工资、薪金总额 100万元, 发生职工福利费 支出 15万元、职工教育经费支出 1.5万元,拨缴工会经费 2万元。 ( 3)全年发生业务招待费支出 8万元。 ( 4)当年发生广告费支出 120万元,上年结转未扣完的广告 费5万元; ( 5) 支付法院诉讼费 3万元, 税收滞纳金 4万元, 合同违 约金 5万元, 银行逾期利息 6万元。 企业所得税
( 6) 因管理不善一批原材料被盗, 原材料成本 10万元, 增值税进项税额 1.3万元, 取得保险公司赔款 6万元,原材料损失 已经税务机关核准。 已知: 职工福利费支出、职工教育经费支出、拨缴的工会经 费分别不超过工资薪金总额的 14% 、 8%和 2%的部分, 准予扣 除; 广告费不超过当年销售(营业) 收入的 15%的部分准予扣除; 业务招待费按照发生额的 60%扣除,但最高不得超过当年销售(营 业)收入的 5‰。 要求:根据上述资料,不考虑其他因素,分析回答下列问题。 企业所得税
甲公司的下列收入中, 在计算 2019年度企业所得税 应纳税所得额时, 应计入企业所得税应纳税所得额的是 ( )。
【背景资料】
某新建商用群体建设项目,地下二层,地上八层,现浇钢筋混凝土框架结构,桩筏基础,建筑面积88000㎡。某施工单位中标后组建项目部进场施工,在项目现场搭设了临时办公室,各类加工车间、库房、食堂和宿舍等临时设施;并根据场地实际情况,在现场临时设施区域内设置了环形消防通道、消火栓、消防供水池等消防设施。施工单位在每月例行的安全生产与文明施工巡查中,对照《建筑施工安全检查标准》(JGJ59-2011)中“文明施工检查评分表”的保证项目逐一进行检查。经统计,现场生产区临时设施总面积超过了1200㎡,检查组人为临时设施区域内消防设施配置不齐全,要求项目部整改。针对地下室200mm厚的无梁楼盖,项目部编制了模板及其支撑架专项施工方案。方案中采用扣件式钢管支撑架体系,支撑架立杆纵横向间距均为1600mm,扫地杆距地面约150mm,每步设置纵横向水平杆,步距为1500mm,立杆深处顶层水平杆的长度控制在150~300mm。顶托螺杆插入立杆的长度不小于150mm.伸出立杆的长度控制在500mm以内。在装饰装修阶段,项目部使用钢管和扣件临时搭设了一个移动式操作平台用于顶棚装饰装修作业。该操作平台的台面面积8.64㎡,台面距楼地面高4.6m。
2014年1月10日,甲公司向乙公司签发一张转账支票, P银行为付款人,甲公司在该支票上记载了“违约金5万元” 的字样。甲公司在该支票上并未记载收款人名称, 但授权 乙公司补记。乙公司在支票上补记收款人名称后,将该支票 背书转让给丙公司。丙公司于2014年7月20日向P银行提示 付款。要求: 根据上述资料,不考虑其他因素,分析回答下列小题。
1. 该支票在未补记“收款人名称”时( )。
某开发商拟建一城市综合体项目,预计总投资十五亿元。发包方式采用施工总承包,施工单位承担部分垫资,按月度实际完成工作量的75%支付工程款,工程质量为合格,保修金为3%,合同总工期为32个月。
某总包单位对该开发商社会信誉,偿债备付率、利息备付率等偿债能力及其他情况进行了尽职调查。中标后,双方依据《建设工程工程量清单计价规范》GB50500-2013,对工程量清单编制方法等强制性规定进行了确认,对工程造价进行了全面审核。最终确定有关费用如下:分部分项工程费82000.00万元,措施费20500.00万元,其他项目费12800.00万元,暂列金额8200.00万元,规费2470.00万元,税金3750.00万元。双方依据《建设工程施工合同(示范文本》GF-2017-0201签订了工程施工总承包合同。
项目部对基坑围护提出了三个方案:A方案成本为8750.00万元,功能系数为0.33;B方案成本为8640.00万元,功能系数为0.35;C方案成本为8525.00万元,功能系数为0.32。最终运用价值工程方法确定了实施方案。
【背景资料 】某无备淤深度航道疏浚工程,疏浚总工程量400万m³。经取样,测得疏浚土天然密度为1.75t/m³。施工单位中标后,选用1艘带边抛管的舱容10000m³自航耙吸船进行施工,疏浚地点为一级工况。根据工程特殊性,先采用边抛的方式施工,经统计,边抛总挖泥时间为488h;然后采用挖运抛的方法进行航道疏浚。抛泥点距航道的平均运距为20km。
耙吸船施工参数如下:挖泥及装舱时间1.5h,轻载航速13kn,重载航速9kn,泥舱装载土方量 6500m³,施工中转头及上线时间为0.4h。挖泥时泥泵流量21000m³/h,抛泥时泥泵流量20000m³/h。边抛吹泥时泥浆平均密度1.14t/m³。挖泥装舱时泥浆平均密度1.24t/m³。有效出槽系数为0.7,时间系数0.8。抛泥时间0.2h。
耙吸船采用装舱法作业时,遇航道某段土质为硬粘性土,且水下地形较为平坦。
施工过程中,施工单位针对耙吸船疏浚特点采取相应措施控制了疏浚平整度,以保证质量与工期。
某施工单位承接一座城市跨河桥的A标段和轻轨交通工程的B标段,A标段为上、下行分立的两幅桥,上部结构为现浇预应力混凝土连续箱梁结构,跨径为70m+120m+70m。B标段高架桥在A标段两幅桥梁中间修建,结构形式为现浇预应力混凝土连续箱梁,跨径为87.5m+145m+87.5m。三幅桥间距较近,B标段高架桥上部结构底高于A标段桥面3.5m以上。
施工项目部根据A标段和B标段的特点,编制了施工组织设计,经项目总监理工程师审批后实施。施工过程中发生如下事件:
事件一:A标段两幅桥的上部结构采用碗扣式支架施工,由于所跨越河道流量较小,水面窄,项目部施工设计采用双孔管涵导流,回填河道并压实处理后作为支架基础,待上部结构施工完毕以后挖除,恢复原状。支架施工前,采用1.1倍的施工荷载对支架基础进行预压。支架搭设时设置预拱度,预拱度考虑承受施工荷载后支架产生的弹性变形。
事件二:B标段晚于A标开工,由于河道疏浚贯通节点工期较早,导致B标段上部结构不具备采用支架法施工条件。
【背景资料】
某山岭区一级公路在进行道路土方路堤填筑时,由于横断面现状地形与设计图偏差较大,且填料较松散,为保证路堤边坡稳定,施工方提出在此处增设一段重力式挡土墙。设计方现场勘察后认为适于此地的挡墙应为加筋土挡墙,其主要原因是地基承载力不够。
【背景资料】
某公司中标承污水截流工程,内容有:新建提升泵站一座,位于城市绿地内,地下部分为内径5m的圆形混凝土结构,底板高程-9.0m;新敷设D1200mm和D1400mm柔性接口钢筋混凝土管道546m,管顶覆土深度4.8m~5.5m,检查井间距50m~80m;A段管道从高速铁路桥跨中穿过,B段管道垂直穿越城市道路,工程纵向剖面如图2所示。场地地下水为层间水,赋存于粉质黏土、重分质黏土层,水量较大。设计采用明挖施工,辅以井点降水和局部注浆加固施工技术措施。
施工前,项目部进场调研发现:高铁桥墩柱基础为摩擦桩;城市道路车流量较大;地下水位较高,水量大,土层渗透系数较小。项目部依据施工图设计拟定了施工方案,并组织对施工方案进行专家论证。根据专家论证意见,项目部提出工程变更,并调整了施工方案如下:1、取消井点降水技术措施;2、泵站地下部分采用沉井法施工;3、管道采用密闭式顶管机顶管施工。该项工程变更获得建设单位的批准。项目部按照设计变更情况,向建设单位提出调整工程费用的申请。
[A] These tools can help you win every argument--not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments--from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding--then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.
[B] Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to learn how to evaluate them properly. A large part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weaknesses in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.
[C] None of these will be easy, but you can start even if others refuse to. Next time you state your position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view. Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.
[D] Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions--like, say, tennis games. Paris of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.
[E] In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: “There is only one way to get the best of an argument--and that is to avoid it.” This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives--and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.
[F] These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or competition, you can win by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. You will be happy to convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid, or joke about how ignorant they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that divide you, but they can help you win--in one way.
[G] There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage in our state, and I do not. If you yell, “Yes,” and I yell. “No,” neither of us learns anything. We neither understand nor respect each other, and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other’s positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.