题目内容
某酒店位于市区中心地带，是一家集餐饮、食宿和娱乐为一体的综合性餐饮企业。酒店设有餐饮部、客户部、娱乐部等经营部门，各经营部门业务实行独立核算。2011年7月，酒店取得以下收入： (1)餐饮收入150万元； (2)住宿收入100万元； (3)出租商业用房取得租金收入10万元； (4)卡拉OK门票收入20万元、点歌费收入6万元、台位费收入30万元、烟酒和饮料赍收入50万元。 已知：服务业税率为5%，娱乐业税率为20%。 要求：根据上述资料，分析回答下列小题。 该酒店7月份租金收入应缴纳营业税（）万元。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
甲公司职工人数为120人，全体职工均于2010年3月1日签订了1年期的劳动合同。从2010年9月起，由于市场发生变化，生产经营发生严重困难，甲公司开始拖欠职工工资。 2011年1月，甲公司濒临破产，被法院裁定进行重整。甲公司决定裁减部分职工，裁减人数初步确定为18人，不支付经济补偿。公司要求被裁减人员办理解除劳动合同手续时遭到拒绝。后经公司再次研究，修改裁员方案，裁减人数修改为10人，并按有关法律规定向被裁减人员支付经济补偿。赵某认为自己不应当被裁减，理由是自己还有6年就退休了，为公司已连续工作17年，没有功劳也有苦劳，公司认为其理由不能成立。 2011年5月，甲公司经过重整，生产经营好转，决定重新向社会招聘职工。赵某得知后，要求在同等条件下被优先聘用。 要求：根据上述资料，回答问题。 下列关于“赵某认为自己不应当被裁减”的说法中，不正确的有（）
某建设单位投资建设项目，按施工总承包模式依据《建设工程工程量清单计价规范》(GB 50500—2008)编制招标文件，有7家施工单位参加了投标，A施工单位中标并按《建设工程项目管理规范》(GB/T 50326—2006)组织项目施工。 根据材料，回答以下问题： 投标人按招标文件要求的计价方式报价，报价书中，将混凝土单价320元/m3，填写为32元/m3，合价正确。业主方有权( )。
某承包商通过公开招标，中标一项框架结构的公共建筑，基础类型为钢筋混凝土筏板式，施工期在元月份，项目部编制了质量控制措施并得到监理人的批准。地面分项工程的地板砖面层铺设完成后，监理人验收发现部分房间有空鼓现象，监理人要求返工处理。 根据材料，回答以下问题： 工程项目施工阶段质量控制的重点是( )。
The single most shattering statistic about life in America in the late 1990s was that tobacco killed more people than the combined total of those who died from AIDS, car accidents, alcohol, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fire. The deaths of more than 400, 000 Americans each year, 160, 000 of them from lung cancer, make a strong case for the prohibition of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes. The case, backed by solid evidence, has been made in every public arena since the early 1950s, when the first convincing link between smoking and cancer was established in clinical and epidemiological studies—yet 50 million Americans still go on smoking. tobacco-related illness. It is a remarkable story, clearly told, astonishingly well documented and with a transparent moral motif. Most smokers in America eventually manage to quit, and local laws banning smoking in public have become common, but the industry prospers. The tobacco companies have survived virtually everything their opponents have thrown at them. At the end of his story, Mr. Brandt writes: "The legal assault on Big Tobacco had been all but repelled. The industry was decidedly intact, ready to do business profitably at home and abroad. "Although the conclusion is not to his liking, Mr. Brandt’s is the first full and convincing explanation of how they pulled it off. Cigarettes overcame any lingering opposition to the pleasure they gave when American soldiers came to crave them during the World War I. War, says Mr. Brandt, was "a critical watershed in establishing the cigarette as a dominant product in modern consumer culture. " Cigarettes were sexy, and the companies poured money into advertising. By 1950 Americans smoked 350 billion cigarettes a year and the industry accounted for 3.5% of consumer spending on non-durables. The first 50 years of the"cigarette century"were a golden era for Big Tobacco. That was simply because, until the 1940s, not enough men had been smoking for long enough to develop fatal cancers (women did not reach this threshold until the 1970s). The first clinical and epidemiological studies linking eigarette-smoking and lung cancer were published only in 1950. By 1953 the six leading companies had agreed that a collective response was required. They paid handsomely for a public-relations campaign that insistently denied any proof of a causal connection between smoking and cancer. This worked well until 1964, when a devastating report from the surgeon-general’s advisory committee in effect ended medical uncertainty about the harmfulness of smoking. But Big Tobacco rode the punches. When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that health warnings must appear on each pack, the industry, consented. But it shrewdly exploited the warning: "In a culture that emphasised individual responsibility, smokers would bear the blame for willful risk-taking," notes Mr. Brandt. Many cases for damages against the companies foundered on that rock. Cigarette-makers also marshaled their numerous allies in Congress to help the passage of a law that bypassed federal agencies such as the FTC, and made Congress itself solely responsible for tobacco regulation. Describing the pervasive influence of tobacco lobbyists, he says: "Legislation from Congress testified to the masterful preparation and strategic command of the tobacco industry. " However, the industry was powerless to prevent a flood of damaging internal documents, leaked by insiders. The companies were shown, for instance, to have cynically disregarded evidence from their in-house researchers about the addictive properties of nicotine. Internal papers also showed that extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to guarantee smokers sufficient" satisfaction". Despite such public-relations disasters, the industry continued to win judgments, most significantly when the Supreme Court rejected by five votes to four a potentially calamitous attack that would have given the Federal Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products. The industry’s shrewdest move was to defuse a barrage of eases brought by individual states, aiming to reclaim the cost of treating sick smokers. The states in 1998 accepted a settlement of $246 billion over 25 years (the price of a pack rose by 45 cents shortly afterwards). In return, the states agreed to end all claims against the companies. But the settlement tied the state governments to tobacco’s purse-strings; they now had an interest in the industry’s success. For those who thought the settlement was akin to" dancing with the devil", it appeared in retrospect that the devil had indeed had the best tunes, reports Mr. Brandt. To his credit, he manages to keep his historian’s hat squarely on his head. But you can feel the anguish. Which of the following might be the most appropriate title for the text
微信支付 
支付宝支付