It s the New Year! Test everyone s legal knowledge!

Happy New Year, landlord!

The answer to the question is this: C should pay the business tax in the transfer. According to Article 1 of the Provisional Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Business Tax (Order No. 540), entities and individuals that provide labor services, transfer intangible assets or sell immovable property within the territory of the People's Republic of China are business tax payers.

Article 3 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Tax Collection stipulates that taxpayers shall fulfill their tax obligations in accordance with the provisions of tax laws and administrative regulations; If the contracts or agreements signed by them conflict with tax laws and administrative regulations, they shall be invalid. However, the buyer A bids for real estate and is not a taxpayer of business tax, and the rules of the auction company are illegal.

LZ is studying at China University of Political Science and Law!

LZ Happy New Year, 1, A should pay the business tax on the transfer of the house. 2. The clause of "business tax and other taxes in the transfer costs shall be borne by A" is reasonable, the contract is the true intention of both parties, and both parties have full civil capacity, and the clause does not violate the law or the public interest.

Elements for the formation of a contract: (1) The parties must express their intentions in the same way, that is, they agree, which is the fundamental condition for the formation of a contract. (2) In the case of agreement, there must be two or more parties. (3) The intention of the parties shall be expressed for the purpose of concluding the contract.

The requirements for the contract to take effect: 1. The parties must have the corresponding capacity to conclude the contract at the time of entering into the contract. 2. The intention of the parties to the contract is true. 3. The contract does not violate the law or the public interest.

I hope mine satisfies you.

1. Divorce within the territory of none, foreigners also depends on whether it is an agreement or a lawsuit, and depends on Article 1 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of Laws to Foreign-related Civil Relations.

2. B. The original text is Article 149 is a foreign-related inheritance relationship, and China adopts the division system, also known as the distinction system, which refers to the fact that in foreign-related inheritance, it is advocated to distinguish movable property and immovable property on the estate of the deceased, and the applicable law of different conflicting norms and guidelines is applied respectively, that is, the movable property in the estate is subject to the personal law of the deceased, and the immovable property is subject to the law of the location of the immovable property.

3. (c) Most-favoured-nation treatment is the treatment accorded by one State to the States and nationals of another State not inferior to that accorded to any third country and nationals now and in the future. Thus, the second country in the question is the beneficiary country.

4. c. It is a system for the application of conflict norms, and the generalized anti-cause includes direct anti-cause, transfer-to-cause, indirect anti-cause, and complete anti-cause. Our country rejects the anti-induction system.

5. b. Article 272 of the Maritime Law.

It's a simple question, okay.

1: In accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, if it is discovered during the investigation that the statute of limitations for prosecution has expired, the case shall be withdrawn, so the first question is selected C.

2: The premise of state compensation is illegal + fault, and the premise of state compensation is fault + not illegal. The second question is not the exercise of executive power, C should be compensated by the state, and D should be an individual act.

This is absolutely the full responsibility of the operator, that is, KTV, because as an entertainment venue operating unit, it must ensure that the operation of the equipment and facilities used for the operation of the venue meets the safety standards, calculate and eliminate the hidden dangers that may cause property damage and endanger the safety of life, and the KTV you went to obviously did not check the safety of the equipment according to the requirements, resulting in the accident of electrocution and injury to the guests. As for their argument that the electrocution was caused by the bare feet of the guests, it is simply a big joke in the world Is it mandatory for every island KTV guest to wear shoes and keep them insulated?

This is the unquestionable responsibility of the operator, if the other party tries to use the relationship and other means to shirk responsibility, then find a lawyer to sue, they lose 100%!

That's it, I wish you all the best in solving the problem!

The responsibility for this accident lies entirely with the song hall, and the operator of a consumer place like KTV must protect the personal safety of consumers, and it is by no means a reason to be electrocuted barefoot. Your sister is a victim and can claim compensation from the song hall in accordance with the law. legal provisions;

The person obligated to compensate the victim for personal injury, all expenses incurred due to medical treatment** and the loss of income due to lost work, including medical expenses, lost work expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses, hospital meal subsidies, and necessary nutrition expenses.

The operator has certain potential safety hazards, and retains evidence to demand certain compensation.

Choose A. The thief committed two acts in this case, one is theft, and the other is **. When the thief was stealing, he was discovered by Li, had bad intentions, intended to **, and actually did **, took out a dagger and stabbed Li, which seriously endangered Li's personal safety.

Li's act of pushing down the thief and causing his death is justified defense as provided for in paragraph 3 of Criminal Law article 20.

This is a typical imaginary conspiracy, characterized by the commission of a single criminal act and the commission of several different crimes. Its judicial punishment is a felony and not a concurrent. The main mistake in this question is that the punishment should not be combined.

I am not a legal professional!!

A should have committed the crime of endangering public safety.

A's behavior should constitute the crime of intentional homicide, and China's criminal law adopts the doctrine of crime composition, that is, there are several crimes that constitute several crimes. Because A's implementation of ** is just a way to kill B. It can be said that one act violates several crimes under the criminal law.

It is a joint offense, and it is regarded as intentional homicide because of the heavier punishment. (Intentional homicide was completed for B, and indirect intentional homicide (attempted) for the other 3 persons.) It is not possible to combine the punishment for several crimes.

Although A carried out ** in order to kill B, he did not control the scope of ** within a certain range, that is to say, the harm caused to others was a "laissez-faire" attitude.

The ** act carried out by A in order to kill B endangers the lives and property safety of an unspecified number of people, seriously endangers social and public safety, and has met the constitutive elements of the "** crime".

As for the acts of "intentional homicide, intentional injury, and intentional destruction of public or private property", they can all be carried out in a ** way. If ** does not endanger "public safety", "intentional homicide, intentional injury, and intentional destruction of public or private property" are respectively defined, and if "public safety" is endangered, it constitutes "** crime". It is only a relationship between "special law" and "common law", which constitutes a "competition of legal provisions", and is defined as a "** crime" by special law due to the common law.

Therefore, A is only convicted of one "** sin".

And what you call "imaginary joint crimes" is also a felony punishment, and the maximum penalty for ** crime is also the death penalty.

Answer: 1. Only suspected of ** crime.

2. You go and look up the criminal law and imagine that the co-offender will be punished as a felony.