inland charges 中文意思是什麼
inland charges
解釋
內陸費-
Pleaded guilty to the above two charges in the western magistrates courts and was fined 5, 000 for each offence, making a total fine of 10, 000. the defendant employed and paid salary to the employee from march 2000 to december 31, 2001. however, the defendant failed to give advance notice of one month to the cir regarding the employee s departure from hong kong as required under section 52 of the inland revenue ordinance
被告gfi hk securities l . l . c .在二年三月至二一年十二月三十一日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，但卻未有遵照稅務條例第52條第6款規定，預先於一個月前將該雇員離開香港一事通知稅務局局長及沒有按照第52條第7款的規定於發出通知日起計一個月內不得支付任何金錢予該雇員。 -
Pleaded guilty to the above two charges in the western magistrates courts and was fined $ 5, 000 for each offence, making a total fine of $ 10, 000. the defendant employed and paid salary to the employee from march 2000 to december 31, 2001. however, the defendant failed to give advance notice of one month to the cir regarding the employee s departure from hong kong as required under section 52 ( 6 ) of the inland revenue ordinance ( iro )
在二年三月至二一年十二月三十一日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，但卻未有遵照《稅務條例》第52條第（ 6 ）款規定，預先於一個月前將該雇員離開香港一事通知稅務局局長；及沒有按照第52條第（ 7 ）款的規定於發出通知日起計一個月內不得支付任何金錢予該雇員。 -
The defendant, talent giant investment limited, pleaded guilty to the two charges in the western magistrate s court and was fined 9, 000 for each offence, making a total fine of 18, 000. the defendant employed and paid salary to the employee during the period from october 21, 1999 to january 4, 2001. however, the defendant failed to give advance notice to the cir regarding the employee s cessation of employment and departure from hong kong as required under section 52 of the inland revenue ordinance
被告鴻鉅投資有限公司在一九九九年十月二十一日至二一年一月四日期間僱用及支付薪金予一名雇員，但卻未有遵照稅務條例第52條6款規定，預先將該雇員停止受雇和離開香港一事通知稅務局局長，亦沒有按照第52條7款的規定於發出通知日起計一個月內不得支付金錢予該雇員。 -
He pleaded guilty to four counts of tax evasion charges on may 19. an investigation by the inland revenue department ( ird ) into the tax affairs of winbusy limited revealed that the company had omitted to report sales proceeds received from two hotels totaling $ 9. 69m in the profits tax returns for the tax years 199293 to 199798, contrary to section 82 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the inland revenue ordinance. the tax undercharged amounted to $ 1, 500, 724
稅務局于調查永互有限公司的稅務事宜時，發現該公司於199293至199798六個課稅年度，在其利得稅報稅表內漏報了售予兩間酒店的銷貨收入，觸犯《稅務條例》第82 （ 1 ） （ a ）條，涉及的銷貨數額約為969萬元，逃繳稅款共1 ， 500 ， 724元。 -
A department store manager pleaded guilty before judge line of the district court today january 17 to two charges on signing incorrect returns, contrary to section 82 of the inland revenue ordinance
一名百貨公司經理今日一月十七日在區域法院承認兩項簽署不正確報稅表的蓄意逃稅罪行，違反稅務條例第82 1 d條。 -
A shipbroker was fined today february 4 for failing to notify the commissioner of inland revenue one month before the expected date of departure from hong kong for a period exceeding one month of two employees who had ceased to be employed, and for failing to withhold money to be paid to the employees. the defendant, howe robinson and company limited, pleaded guilty to two charges in the eastern magistrates courts and was fined 4, 000 for each charge, making a total fine of 8, 000
一間船務公司今日二月四日在東區裁判法院承認未有在兩名停止受雇和離港的雇員于離港前一個月以書面通知稅務局局長，以及未有停止支付金錢予該兩名雇員共二項控罪，每項控罪各被罰款四千元，合共罰款八千元。 -
A shipbroker was fined today ( february 4 ) for failing to notify the commissioner of inland revenue ( cir ) one month before the expected date of departure from hong kong for a period exceeding one month of two employees who had ceased to be employed, and for failing to withhold money to be paid to the employees. the defendant, howe robinson and company limited, pleaded guilty to two charges in the eastern magistrates courts and was fined $ 4, 000 for each charge, making a total fine of $ 8, 000
一間船務公司今日（二月四日）在東區裁判法院承認未有在兩名停止受雇和離港的雇員于離港前一個月以書面通知稅務局局長，以及未有停止支付金錢予該兩名雇員共二項控罪，每項控罪各被罰款四千元，合共罰款八千元。 -
During 2003 - 04, the court of first instance ruled on three appeal cases. the issues considered by the court included the taxability of profits from the sale of properties ; the deductibility of amounts claimed by a practising accountant as office facilities charges and entertainment and equipment rental expenses ; and whether the provisions of the inland revenue ordinance concerning personal assessment in the case of a married couple are inconsistent with the basic law
在2003至04年度，原訟法庭就3宗上訴個案作出裁決，所涉及的問題包括出售物業的利潤是否應課利得稅；一位執業會計師是否可以申索扣除他聲稱支付了的辦公室設施費用、應酬費及機器租賃費；以及《稅務條例》內有關已婚人士根據個人入息課稅評稅的條文是否與基本法不符。 -
The defendant, ms pak wan - kam, pamela, pleaded guilty to all four charges on signing fraudulent profits tax returns for the taxation years 1994 5 to 1997 98, contrary to section 82 of the inland revenue ordinance
被告白韻琴承認四項簽署虛假1994 95至1997 98課稅年度利得稅報稅表的控罪，觸犯稅務條例第82 1 d條。 -
The defendant, ms pak wan - kam, pamela, pleaded guilty to all four charges on signing fraudulent profits tax returns for the taxation years 19945 to 199798, contrary to section 82 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the inland revenue ordinance
被告白韻琴承認四項簽署虛假199495至199798課稅年度利得稅報稅表的控罪，觸犯稅務條例第82 （ 1 ） （ d ）條。
分享友人