Focusing on form:student engagement with
teacher feedback
Fiona Hyland *
Faculty of Education,University of Hong Kong,Pokfulam Road,Hong Kong,SAR,China
Received 29August 2002;received in revised form 25November 2002;accepted 20January 2003Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between teacher feedback and student revision in two academic writing classes.The study adopts a case study approach and looks at all the feed-back given to six students over a complete https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,ing data from teacher think aloud pro-tocols,teacher and student interviews and student texts,it examines the extent to which teachers focused on formal language concerns when they gave feedback and the use that stu-dents made of this feedback in their revisions.Findings suggest that despite the teachers’beliefs and teaching approaches,language accuracy was a very important focus for their feedback.While most of the students engaged with this feedback when revising their drafts,the extent to which they used it varied among the case study subjects.Two case studies who made consistent and sustained use of form-focused feedback are discussed in greater detail to examine student engagement with form-focused feedback over a complete course.
#2003Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.
Keywords:Feedback;Revision;Academic writing;Error correction;Case study
1.Introduction
Most teachers hope their feedback will not only improve their students’current writing,but also help their writing and language development.The part that form-focused feedback plays in such development is,however,still an open question.This paper examines this issue by exploring the relationship between teacher written feedback and ESL students’revisions and writing development within an academic writing context.Basically it will consider three aspects of feedback and revision in
a System 31(2003)217–230
https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,/locate/system
0346-251X/03/$-see front matter #2003Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6
*Fax:+852-2858-5649.
E-mail address:fhyland@hkucc.hku.hk (F.Hyland).
218 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
speci?c context;(1)the extent to which teachers focused on form when they gave feedback,(2)the use that the students made of this form-focused feedback in their immediate revisions to drafts and(3)it will look at two case studies to examine student engagement with form-focused feedback over a complete course.
1.1.Teacher feedback
While it is generally agreed that L2teacher feedback may need to address slightly di?erent issues to L1feedback(Raimes,1987),there is still some debate about what these should be.Early L2writing research in?uenced by process theories argued against feedback which focused on grammar correction,viewing it as both dis-couraging and unhelpful.Zamel urged teachers to‘‘hold in abeyance’’their‘‘re?ex-like reactions to surface level concerns and give priority to meaning’’(1985:96). Such a position was backed up by research which suggested that error correction had few positive e?ects on student writing(Hendericksen,1978;Kepner,1991; Semke,1984;Lalande,1982;Robb et al.,1986).More recently Truscott(1996)has argued that language correction is often ine?ective because teachers lack the skills to analyse and explain students’problems,while the students lack the skills to under-stand and use such feedback.According to Truscott(1999),teachers have reinforced student beliefs in the bene?ts of language correction and so it is their responsibility to change student attitudes by adopting a‘‘correction-free approach’’in their class-rooms.
However teachers may be reluctant to do this since research on student attitudes towards feedback has found that many students do want errors in their writing corrected and may be frustrated if this does not happen(Radeki and Swales,1988; Leki,1991).ESL students in academic contexts place a particularly high value on form-focused feedback(Leki,1991;Hedgcock and Lefkowitz,1994,1996;Ferris, 1995)and see having error-free work as highly desirable(Cumming,1995).In addi-tion,it has been argued that form-focused feedback can be e?ective,when accom-panied by classroom instruction(Master,1995).Ferris(1999)argued that students could improve their language accuracy through feedback on form if they were taught the rules governing their frequent errors,but considered that only errors which were ruled governed such as agreement and article problems were‘treatable’in this way through feedback,while other more idiosyncratic errors such as word choice and word order might need a more directive feedback strategy such as refor-mulation or complete https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,ter research(Ferris and Roberts,2001)suggests that the situation may be more complex and that indirect feedback techniques,such as locating the type of error and asking students to correct it themselves,may be helpful for untreatable errors in some cases.
The quality of revision after feedback on error has also been examined and it has been suggested that feedback on error can improve students’writing in the short-term.A study by Ferris(1997)found that73%of grammar-focused teacher com-ments(including both notes in the margin and end notes)resulted in successful revisions while Ferris and Roberts(2001)found that of two groups of students o?ered di?erent types of feedback,one group was able to successfully revise60%of
F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230219 their grammatical errors when they were merely underlined,while another group was able to revise64%of such errors when they were both underlined and coded, but not corrected through feedback.In contrast a group which revised without feedback was able to self correct only18%of their errors.
Studies which measure student improvement longitudinally after error correction in terms of accuracy also suggest that students who receive error feedback over a period of time do improve their language accuracy(Polio et al,1998).While it is unlikely that feedback alone is responsible for language accuracy improvement over a complete course,Ferris(2002:18)argues that it is likely to be one important factor.
One problem with making direct comparisons between the?ndings of the studies discussed earlier is that the research settings and the subjects varied greatly.Experi-enced teachers often tailor their feedback to suit each student,considering con-textual factors including the task,and the audience(Ferris et al.,1997).They may also consider the individual writer’s needs,ability,personality and culture(Hyland, 1998),and it may be that what is e?ective feedback for one student in one setting,is less so in another.
In order to look more closely at the relationship between feedback and student learning,this research examines the e?ects of written teacher feedback on individual ESL students and their texts over a complete course.Case study methodology is used to provide in-depth information about the individual responses of students to teacher feedback.This helps us to gain a better understanding of student perspec-tives and uses of feedback.Basically the research seeks to answer the following questions:
1.What proportion of the teachers’feedback focused on form?
2.How did students engage with this form-focused feedback?
3.Did students make any progress in areas addressed by the feedback?
2.Method
The research investigated the e?ects of teacher written feedback on the revisions and writing products of six ESL writers on a full-time14week English pro?ciency programme course at a university in New Zealand.Two classes were observed:one class preparing students for undergraduate studies(Class A)and one class preparing them for postgraduate studies(Class B).Based on placement tests given at the beginning of the course,the students in Class A were classi?ed as low to mid inter-mediate level,while the students in Class B were higher intermediate towards advanced level.Each class had3h of writing classes and workshops each week The two class teachers,Joan(Class A)and Nadia(Class B)agreed to be observed in their writing workshops,interviewed and have their feedback collected.Six students (three from each class)also agreed to participate in the case study part of the research.These were selected to include students from a variety of di?erent back-grounds and language levels.
220 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
2.1.Data collection
This was a naturalistic study,so teachers were asked to teach writing and give feedback exactly as they would have if the researcher had not been present.Writing workshops in the two classes were observed each week and all writing done by the case study subjects and feedback related to it was collected.The writing included both test writing done in class,and assignment writing which was usually worked on in writing workshops and then completed at home.Students were interviewed three times;in the?rst week,around week seven,and at the end of the course.Interviews with teachers were also carried out in the?rst week and they were asked to conduct think aloud protocols as they gave written feedback to the draft of one piece of writing for each case study participant.Retrospective interviews with the students were then carried out,within a day of their revising of these drafts,focusing on their revision strategies and their responses to the written feedback.
2.2.Data analysis
The written data consisted of student writing(drafts and?nal versions)and related feedback.There were two major writing tasks related to the students’own academic interests.In addition students worked on shorter pieces of thematically based writing in class and at home.The genres covered included descriptive,argu-mentative and research essays.In Class A students received teacher feedback on ten pieces of writing,and in Class B they received feedback on seven pieces of writing.
Each piece of writing was?rst examined to identify all the separate written inter-ventions made by the teacher on each student text.Any comment,underlining or correction made on the student text by the teacher was considered as a written intervention.Each written intervention was then categorized as a‘feedback point’and the total number of feedback points for each piece of writing was calculated. The students in this study suggested that when they revised,they dealt with each issue as it appeared on their texts and did not di?erentiate di?erent types of feed-back.The teacher protocols also revealed that teachers gave feedback on both meaning and form-related issues as they occurred and did not consider them sepa-rately.For this reason,all written interventions were?rst identi?ed as feedback points,whether they focused on grammar,content or genre related issues.The feedback points that focused on form and error correction were then identi?ed and counted.
Both teachers used a set of codes for showing form-related problems,but they often supplemented this with comments in the margin,complete corrections and generalized comments at the end of the essay.The range of interventions varied from simple circling or underlining of mistakes:
When a library buy CD Roms,
to indications of the area of error:
F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230221
T
These orphans have stress since they were born.
to complete corrections of errors:
the
The company should consider how they can increase sales in^present market.
In addition,in cases where simple correction was di?cult,the teachers reformulated whole phrases and sentences.For example the sentence‘To express the?ow-chart which sta?s deal with one case’was crossed out and the following reformulation was written above it‘The following?ow-chart shows the sequence in which sta?deal with each case’.
Some longer comments were also given to the students either on a summary sheet, at the end of the writing or in the margin.For example,next to the sentence:
Also by the promotional target and mix evaluating the promotional strategy to be relevant to the promotional plan of the NZAE.
Joan wrote:What is the subject of this sentence?,alerting the student to the struc-tural problems in his sentence.
The feedback points for one case study were also counted and analysed by another experienced ESL teacher.A comparison of the two analyses found only a few dis-crepancies.These were then discussed and some amendments made.A second case study was then coded by both parties and on this occasion,an agreement rate of over90%was reached.
3.Results
3.1.What proportion of the feedback focused on form?
Table1shows the total number of feedback points given for each case study over the complete course and the percentage of the total feedback o?ered which focused on form.It is interesting to see the range in the number of points o?ered to each student,varying from633for Keith in Class A to only141for Zhang in Class B.To an extent this may be explained by the higher language level of the students in Class B,but there were also considerable di?erences in the number of points o?ered to individual students within each class.Again this may be partly explained by the student’s language level but is also possibly partly the result of the teachers responding to students’requests for certain types of feedback on the cover sheet they submitted with each writing assignment.
For all students however,more than half the feedback focused on form,suggest-ing this was a major focus for both teachers,despite the teachers’own perceptions of their approaches.In interviews and classroom observations,the teacher of class B,
222 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
Table1
Feedback focusing on form:percentages of total feedback o?ered over the course for all case studies Student Total feedback points Feedback points focused on form Class A
Maho420257(61.2%)
SengHee376219(58.2%)
Keith633476(75.2%)
Class B
Samorn333242(72.7%)
Liang236145(61.4%)
ZhangYue14174(56%)
Nadia,came across as a?rm follower of the process school.She worried that stu-dents were obsessed with grammar,and in writing workshops she urged them to focus on the writing as a‘whole’and its e?ects on the reader when revising their drafts or giving peer feedback.The teacher of class A,Joan suggested that she was most concerned with genre issues when giving feedback,with her main aim being to impart academic knowledge on writing.Even so,like Nadia,a large proportion of her feedback focused on the formal aspects of the students’texts.
3.2.What revisions did the students make in response to feedback on form?
In both classes,three pieces of writing involved students writing a draft,receiving teacher written feedback and then writing a revised version of their assignment.By comparing the drafts and?nal versions of these three assignments,changes could be identi?ed.These revisions were then cross-referenced to the feedback points given on the drafts to determine whether the revisions were related to the feedback or not and to see if the students were able to carry out these revisions successfully.With some revisions it was di?cult to decide if the change should be classi?ed as suc-cessful,since the student had addressed the indicated problem,but the revision had only partially improved the text.This was especially the case when classifying revi-sions related to complex sentence structure problems.In order to improve the accuracy of the judgement,the revisions for one case study were also analysed by another experienced ESL teacher.Di?erences were discussed and amendments made until an agreement rate of95%was reached.
Table2shows the number of form-focused feedback points given to each student on their drafts and the number of revisions which could be related to those feedback points.In addition,it shows whether the students were able to successfully carry out these revisions.Three of the students,Keith,Samorn and Liang used a very high proportion of their teacher’s form-focused feedback,while Seng Hee and Zhang Yue used74%and62%respectively and Maho used only10%.Interviews and obser-vations suggested some reasons for this.Both Zhang and Seng Hee revised their drafts quite considerably,eliminating large chunks of text and this meant that some of the feedback could not be used.In her interviews,Maho expressed a very strong
preference for feedback which focused on her ideas (Hyland,1998)and a lack of interest in feedback on language problems.Accuracy was not an important issue for her,so she was prepared to ignore some form-focused teacher feedback.In fact she also made very major changes to her drafts,as she viewed a draft as primarily a way of generating ideas about a topic.This strategy was communicated to Maho’s tea-cher who then focused her feedback on drafts mainly on organization and develop-ment of ideas rather than form,reserving her form-focused feedback for ?nal versions of essays.This suggests that students’use of form-focused feedback when revising their drafts is variable and may be a?ected by factors such as the students’individual goals and preferences.
The table also shows that the students were quite successful in carrying out the revisions after receiving the feedback,although some were more successful than others.This is possibly due to di?erences in the nature of their errors and the level of the students.Another factor may have been help from others.Since this was a nat-uralistic study,students received feedback then took their drafts away to revise,as this was the normal practice on the course.Interviews and discussions with the stu-dents indicated that at least two of them (Liang and Samorn)used spouses or friends as informants to help them revise their assignments.In fact Liang regarded the conversations she had with her husband about her writing as a very important reinforcement and learning opportunity (Hyland,2000).
3.3.Student engagement with the form-focused feedb ack over the course:two case studies
From the data discussed earlier we can see that feedback focused on error was widely given to the students and overall had a positive short term e?ect on their writing.However teachers giving feedback are primarily interested in improving students’long-term language accuracy.In order to get a longer term perspective on the part that feedback played in students’development,the writing for each student Table 2
Feedback o?ered on drafts and related revisions on formal concerns
Student No.of form focused
feedback points
o?ered on drafts
No.of related revisions on redrafted essays %Of successful revisions Class A Maho 20
2(10%)2(100%)Seng Hee 31
23(74%)17(74%)Keith
148121(82%)91(75%)Class B
Samom
187152(81%)126(83%)Liang
6558(89%)50(86%)Zhang Yue 2918(62%)16(88%)
F.Hyland /System 31(2003)217–230
223
224 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
was examined in chronological order,speci?c problems were identi?ed within the areas focused on by written feedback,and development in these problem areas was traced throughout the3months of the course.
This analysis produced very detailed information,and so I will restrict the dis-cussion to language features of the writing of one student from each class.We have seen that three of the students made greater use of form-focused teacher feedback. In the next part of this paper,I will focus on two of these,Keith from Class A and Liang from Class B.
3.3.1.Keith
Keith was a26year old intermediate student in class A from Taiwan.His attitude to language learning was very serious and deliberate.He valued feedback highly and during his?rst interview he repeated twice that at the revision stage of the draft,he focused on the problems raised by the teacher’s feedback.At the end of the course he also suggested that feedback had been the factor which had helped him the most to improve.He had used it to decide what to practice and was‘‘one hundred per-cent’’convinced that written feedback had improved his writing.
Keith believed that the teacher’s main role when giving feedback was to correct mistakes in grammar.He tried to correct every error in his essays,but was quite realistic about the potential of this for immediately improving his writing:
However make mistakes inevitably,but it doesn’t matter,because you can from every time improve your writing,maybe once,twice,third time you will correct your errors.
One thing he liked to do was to‘‘ask my classmates or the teacher what the problem is’’.Asking was important because he believed learning a language involved being‘‘energetic’’:‘‘If you don’t open your mouth,you won’t know the answers’’. He believed in the power of experimentation and correction:‘‘Making mistakes is helpful for you to learn a language,if you ignore mistakes in your process of learn-ing,you don’t know what correct is.’’Keith was ready to‘‘take risks and look for feedback on points of uncertainty.’’(Skehan,1998:17)
Keith reported that he made very systematic use of feedback on drafts and this was also backed up by observations during the writing workshops as well as the data in Table2.When he was given back an assignment,he?rst looked at the correc-tions.Then he read the comments in the margin and then he read the?nal com-ments.After that he tried to correct all grammar problems and change any unclear sentences.In the past he had only corrected errors in drafts but he had found that he was not making the progress he wanted:so he decided to systematically correct all errors noted in every piece of writing he received feedback on,whether it was a draft or?nal version.He then wrote the corrected sentences in a practice book which he looked through before starting his next piece of writing
Keith identi?ed sentence structure as his most serious problem in all his inter-views.At times he obviously felt a great deal of frustration with his progress,as this extract from his retrospective interview shows:
F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230225
F(Reading feedback):Sometimes you need to focus on basic grammar
K Yes basic grammar and simple sentences to describe the complex ideas because this always frustrated to me....I don’t know how to improve this way and the structure of sentence,I’m very concerned about that.
F When you read those comments,did you make any changes after you read
those comments?
K I can’t?nd any di?erence because as I say,this sentence always frustrated to me.
Because I don’t know where can I improve,especially the structure of sentences.
Keith’s problems with sentence structure were quite serious and made it di?cult for a reader to decipher his meaning.Joan’s di?culties as she responded to the draft of his?rst assignment came through many times in her protocol:
‘‘According to the potential market actual need designated the establishment and salary’’—What?....’’—Potential or actual?Um—opposites I think.Oh this is not at all clear—I’ve no idea—What did he say he wanted?He wanted struc-ture of sentences-well hmm—it’s so bad that I can’t understand it.
In every piece of writing on this course,Joan drew Keith’s attention to sentence structure problems.For example on the two drafts for the two major assignments she gave25feedback points related to sentence structure.This feedback was varied. Sometimes she wrote generalised feedback such as‘‘not clear’’or more speci?c feedback such as‘Where is the subject in this sentence?’’or wrote a reformulation in the margin.She also commented on his poor control of complex sentence structure a number of times in her summative comments at the end of the essays:
Main grammar problems are making sure complex sentences have a clear subject and a main verb.Practise?nding these in your own sentences.
Make sure that you can clearly identify a subject and a verb in each sentence.
As we have seen,Keith made serious attempts to use this feedback,not just to improve drafts,but also to commit the language points into his memory for future use,but did this have any e?ects on his writing?
Almost every week during the course students were given a test which usually involved writing a200word essay.The number of sentence structure problems in each piece of Keith’s test writing was counted with the results shown in Table3.This suggests some very gradual improvement in terms of control of sentence structure over the whole course,but Keith’s progress may be shown more clearly by a com-parison between his?rst writing and his?nal test writing.This is the introduction to a short essay on the good language learner written in the second week of the course: It is good saying that‘‘no pains,no gains’’correspondingly,there is also a motivation to do something,the crucial thing we dedicate to learn English is identi?cation of our purpose,now we have a clear purpose to be in for the result of speci?c motivation,inevitably.
226 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
Table3
Keith‘s problems with sentence structure
Test No.of sentence structure problems Week28
Week37
Week54
Week63
Week84
Week94
Week113
Final test4
We can compare this with the introduction from Keith’s?nal test writing on food additives:
The public just considered about the negative e?ects of using the food additives. However,in fact food with additives is safer than food without additives, especially for meats,?sh and cheese products.In this essay I will discuss the relevant reasons towards support the use of preservatives which is more e?ective. This writing shows greater control in terms of sentence structure and although it is less complex and there are still some minor inaccuracies,the message is conveyed more successfully.
Although tests at the end of this course suggested Keith was not ready to pursue academic studies,he was sure that his writing skills had improved and was con-vinced that feedback,coupled with his active learning strategies were what had helped him do this.He said he was now‘very proud’of his sentence structure.
3.3.2.Liang
Liang was an upper intermediate writer in Class B,the postgraduate class.She also came from Taiwan,but was a mature student in her thirties.Like Keith,Liang had a systematic approach to language learning.After the classes?nished for the day she would spend two or three hours studying in the Self Access Centre.She also stressed the importance of language related feedback and believed that such feed-back took time to have an e?ect:
If you correct me once I may forget that time,and the next time and the next time.But the teacher should keep correcting me and some time I will remember. Although errors in Liang’s writing did not present the same meaning problems as Keith’s,she did have some quite basic problems,especially with articles.Nadia drew her attention to article problems in her feedback by underlining them,writing‘A’in
F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230227
the margin and giving end comments like‘work needed on articles.’In her protocol when responding to Liang’s?rst assignment,Nadia suggested that it was an area she would discuss with Liang in more detail in class:
...that’s what I know I need to follow up on with her and perhaps just make sure that she gets on to that one.
In her retrospective interview Liang also recognised that she had a problem with articles,but seemed somewhat sceptical about whether feedback could help her with this:
F Do you think the comments here will help you to remember about articles?
L Maybe next time I will have the same mistake about articles(laughs).But I will try to.(laughs)....Because sometimes I think this sentence should use article but the teacher doesn’t think so.
Liang’s use of articles was examined throughout the course.The draft of her?rst assignment had comments and corrections on four article problems but her?nal assignment had none.Table4shows the pattern of errors in her weekly writing tests. It therefore seems that Liang had made some progress but the part that feedback played in this improvement is di?cult to assess.As Nadia’s protocol suggests,writ-ten feedback was combined with oral discussion and other strategies.The reason for the increase in errors towards the end of the course is also di?cult to explain.It may be that the early focus made her conscious of article problems and more careful in her article https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,ter in the course she might have relaxed her‘monitor’,only to put it back in place for the?nal important test(which indicated whether students were ready for university study in English).
One interesting point is that in her?nal interview,Liang expressed dissatisfaction that her teacher had concentrated her form-focused feedback on what she termed ‘basic’problems like articles,but not on her‘‘complex grammar problems’’like sentence structure.However,there were in fact very few serious sentence structure problems for the teacher to comment on in her writing.In fact in her?nal progress report Nadia suggested that in the future Liang needed to focus on writing more Table4
Liang‘s problems with articles
Test Number of Article problems Week25
Week32
Week61
Week72
Week104
Week114
Final test0
228 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
complex sentences,as she was restricting herself to correct but simple structures. Unlike Keith who believed in trying out new structures,Liang limited herself to simple correct sentences,but it could be argued that she also failed to develop the more complex ways of expressing herself that she would need in the academic con-text.Her comments seemed to indicate that she was aware of this.
4.Conclusions and implications
So,did the students engage productively with the feedback on form?Certainly it was used by most of the case study students in their immediate revisions to their drafts and was highly valued by all of them.However,according to some researchers such form-focused feedback and revision would be unlikely to have any positive e?ect on the students’writing development.
While all six case study students were well aware that form-focused feedback was unlikely to have an immediate e?ect,they all had a?rm belief that repeated feed-back would eventually help them,and that without the feedback they would fail to note the errors and improve.Since this was a strongly held belief,which in?uenced the strategies the students used for dealing with feedback,it cannot easily be dis-missed.We need to be aware of student beliefs,and take these into consideration when giving feedback.Teachers may need to open channels with students to discuss the potential bene?ts of feedback on di?erent aspects of writing and possible stra-tegies for using this feedback.
In fact,the cases of Liang and Keith o?er some support to the argument that some language errors may be‘treatable’(Ferris,1999)through feedback,but also suggest feedback needs to be examined in tandem with other aspects of the context, such as the reinforcement provided in class,students’self directed study and the motivation of the individual students.Both Liang and Keith were highly motivated and had developed their own strategies for utilising feedback and this may have had an e?ect on their language development.
This study also re-emphasizes the importance of the individual when considering how ESL students respond to feedback.In the contrast between Liang’s carefully controlled,simple language use and Keith’s bold experimentation and striving for ways to make his writing more complex,we see a dilemma for the student and the teacher.An over-focus on correct English can restrict students to using only those structures they feel con?dent of getting right,and may mean they fail to practice and develop more complex language patterns.However,encouraging students to experiment and take risks with the language can also cause problems.
A similar point has been noted by Skehan in studies of ESL students’spoken language performance.Skehan(1998:286)points out the contrast between‘‘form which emphasizes control and conservatism and form which emphasizes risk-taking and interlanguage change’’.Liang exempli?es Skehan’s hypothetical learner who ‘‘relies on less ambitious form,but form which is adequately controlled and where error can be avoided’’.Keith resembles the learner who is‘‘willing to take on com-plex forms and respond to challenges’’but consequently makes more errors.Skehan
F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230229
suggests that pedagogic principles need to foster balanced development and attend to complexity,?uency and accuracy,so that progress is made in all three areas.It is also important to consider the interaction between these areas when giving feedback on students’written performance.
We need to be aware of the extent to which ESL students value and the ways they use our feedback and we need more studies focusing on individual students,to help us to build up a picture of the various ways that students incorporate feedback into their language learning processes.Such studies would enhance our understanding of the feedback process and help us to give more useful feedback to students. References
Cumming,A.,1995.Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction:modeling and eval-uation.In:Belcher,D.,Braine,G.(Eds.),Academic Writing in a Second Language:Essays in Research and Pedagogy.Ablex,Norwood,NJ,pp.375–397.
Ferris,D.R.,1995.Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly29,33–53.
Ferris,D.R.,1997.The in?uence of teacher commentary on student revision.TESOL Quarterly31,315–339.
Ferris,D.R.,1999.The case for grammar correction in L2writing classes:a response to Truscott.Journal of Second Language Writing8,1–12.
Ferris,D.R.,2002.Treatment of error in second language student writing.University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Ferris,D.R.,Pezone,S.,Tade,C.R.,Tinti,S.,1997.Teacher commentary on student writing:descriptions and implications.Journal of Second Language Writing6,155–182.
Ferris,D.R.,Roberts,B.,2001.Error feedback in L2writing classes:how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing10,161–184.
Hedgcock,J.,Lefkowitz,N.,1996.Some input on input:two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2writing.The Modern Language Journal80,287–308.
Henderickson,J.,1978.Error correction in foreign language teaching.Recent theory,research and prac-tice.Modern Language Journal62,387–398.
Hedgcock,J.,Lefkowitz,N.,1994.Feedback on feedback:assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2composing.Journal of Second Language Writing3,141–163.
Hyland,F.,1998.The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers.Journal of Second Lan-guage Writing7,255–286.
Hyland,F.,2000.ESL writers and feedback:giving more autonomy to https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,nguage Teaching Research4,33–54.
Kepner,C.,1991.An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of writing skills.Modern Language Journal75,305–313.
Lalande,J.F.,1982.Reducing composition errors.An experiment.Modern Language Journal66,140–149.
Leki,I.,1991.The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes.Foreign Language Annals24,203–218.
Master,P.,1995.Consciousness raising and article pedagogy.In:Belcher,D.,Braine,G.(Eds.),Academic Writing in a Second Language:Essays in Research and Pedagogy.Ablex,Norwood,NJ,pp.183–205. Polio,C.,Fleck,C.,Leder,N.,1998.‘‘If I only had more time:’’ESL learners’changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions.Journal of Second Language Writing7,43–68.
Radecki,P.M.,Swales,J.M.,1988.ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System16(3),355–365.
230 F.Hyland/System31(2003)217–230
Raimes,A.,https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,nguage pro?ciency,writing ability and composing strategies.A study of ESL college https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,nguage Learning37,439–468.
Robb,T.,Ross,S.,Shortreed,I.,1986.Salience of feedback on error and its e?ect on EFL writing qual-ity.TESOL Quarterly20(1),83–91.
Semke,H.D.,1984.The e?ects of the red pen.Foreign Language Annals17,195–202.
Skehan,P.,1998.A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.Oxford University Press,Oxford. Truscott,J.,1996.The case against grammar correction in L2writing https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html,nguage Learning46,327–369.
Truscott,J.,1999.The case for‘‘the case against grammar correction in L2writing classes’’.A response to Ferris.Journal of Second Language Writing8,111–122.
Zamel,V.,1985.Responding to student writing.TESOL Quarterly19,79–101.
2017年营改增后最新增值税税率表 营改增全面试点于2016年5月1日全面推开，此次税改将建筑业、房地产业、金融业、生活服务业纳入试点范围。其中，建筑业和房地产业税率确定为11%，金融业和生活服务业则确定为6%。按照方案要求，营改增后要确保所有行业不增负。具体的营改增税率表如下：
其他事项 一、关于5%征收率： 以下应税行为按5%征收率简易计税方法计算应纳税额，除此以外简易计税应按3%征收率计算。 1、销售不动产 ⑴一般纳税人（非房地产企业）销售（准确讲叫转让）2016年4月30日前取得的不动产，可以选择 简易计税方法，按5%的征收率计算应纳税额。 ⑵小规模纳税人（非房地产企业）销售（准确讲叫转让）其取得的不动产（不含个体工商户销售购买 的住房和其他个人销售不动产），按5%的征收率计算应纳税额。 ⑶房地产开发企业中的一般纳税人，销售自行开发的房地产老项目，可以选择简易计税方法，按5% 的征收率计算应纳税额。 ⑷房地产开发企业中的小规模纳税人，销售自行开发的房地产项目，按5%的征收率计算应纳税额。 ⑸其他个人（自然人）销售取得（不含自建）的不动产（不含其购买的住房），按5%的征收率计算应纳税额。
2、不动产经营租赁服务 ⑴一般纳税人出租其2016年4月30日前取得的不动产，可以选择简易计税方法，按5%的征收率计算应纳税额（公路经营中试点前开工的高速公路通行费，减按3%计算应纳税额） ⑵小规模纳税人出租其取得的不动产（不含个人出租住房），应按5%的征收率计算应纳税额。 ⑶其他个人出租其取得的不动（不含住房），应按5%的征收率计算应纳税额。 ⑷个人出租住房，应按5%的征收率减按1.5%计算应纳税额。 3、劳务派遣服务，一般纳税人可以选择简易计税，并按差额征收的，按5%计算应税额。 4、中外合作开采原油、天然气。 二、其他相关问题： 1、营改增后，增值税征收已从传统的销售及进口货物，加工、修理修配劳务， 扩展到销售应税服务，销售无形资产和销售不动产。 2、税法与会计口径的“固定资产”内涵已发生了变化。税法规定的固定资产不包含 不动产（指不能移动或移动后性质形状发生改变的建筑物、构筑物），而会计口径的固定资产包含不动产；税法规定与生产经营有关的固定资产进项可一次抵扣，而与生产经营有关的不动产进项只能分期抵扣；而且增值税纳税申报表已将二者分别反映。 3、采用一般计税方法的差额征税问题。 ⑴金融商品转让，按照卖出价扣除买入价后的余额为销售额。 ⑵经纪代理服务，以取得的全部价款和价外费用，扣除向委托方收取并代为支付的政府性基金或 行政事业性收费后的余额为销售额。 ⑶融资租赁和融资性售后回租业务，以取得的全部价款和价外费用，根据不同情况，可扣除承租 方本金、借款利息、发行债券利息、车辆购置税等后的余额为销售额。 ⑷航空运输业，可扣除代收的机场建设费和代售其他航空运输业企业客票而代收转付的价款。 ⑸客运站场服务，以取得的全部价款和价外费用，扣除支付给承运方运费后的余额为销售额。 ⑹旅游服务，可以选择以取得的全部价款和价外费用，扣除向旅游服务购买方收取并支付的其他 单位和个人的住宿费、餐饮费、交通费、签证费、门票费和支付给其他旅游企业的旅游费
监控摄像机镜头的选择和主要参数 镜头相当于人眼的晶状体，如果没有晶状体，人眼看不到任何物体;如果没有镜头，那么摄像头所输出的图像就是白茫茫的一片，没有清晰的图像输出，这与我们家用摄像机和照相机的原理是一致的。当人眼的肌肉无法将晶状体拉伸至正常位置时，也就是人们常说的近视眼，眼前的景物就变得模糊不清;摄像头与镜头的配合也有类似现象，当图像变得不清楚时，可以调整摄像头的后焦点，改变CCD芯片与镜头基准面的距离(相当于调整人眼晶状体的位置)，可以将模糊的图像变得清晰。由此可见，镜头在闭路监控系统中的作用是非常重要的。工程设计人员和施工人员都要经常与镜头打交道：设计人员要根据物距、成像大小计算镜头焦距，施工人员经常进行现场调试，其中一部分就是把镜头调整到最佳状态。 1、镜头的分类 按外形功能分按尺寸大小分按光圈分按变焦类型分按焦距长矩分 球面镜头1” 25mm 自动光圈电动变焦长焦距镜头 非球面镜头 1/2” 3mm 手动光圈手动变焦标准镜头 针孔镜头 1/3” 8.5mm 固定光圈固定焦距广角镜头 鱼眼镜头 2/3” 17mm (1)以镜头安装分类: 所有的摄象机镜头均是螺纹口的，CCD摄象机的镜头安装有两种工业标准，即C安装座和CS安装座。两者螺纹部分相同，但两者从镜头到感光表面的距离同。C安装座：从镜头安装基准面到焦点的距离是17.526mm。CS安装座：特种C安装，此时应将摄象机前部的垫圈取下再安装镜头。其镜头安装基准面到焦点的距离是12.5mm。如果要将一个C安装座镜头安装到一个CS安装座摄象机上时，则需要使用镜头转换器。 (2)以摄象机镜头规格分类: 摄象机镜头规格应视摄象机的CCD尺寸而定，两者应相对应。即摄象机的CCD靶面大小为1/2英寸时，镜头应选1/2英寸。摄象机的CCD靶面大小为1/3英寸时，镜头应选1/3英寸。摄象机的CCD靶面大小为1/4英寸时，镜头应选1/4英寸。如果镜头尺寸与摄象机CCD靶面尺寸不一致时，观察角度将不符合设计要求，或者发生画面在焦点以外等问题。 (3)以镜头光圈分类: 镜头有手动光圈(manual iris)和自动光圈(auto iris)之分，配合摄象机使用，手动光圈镜头适合于亮度不变的应用场合，自动光圈镜头因亮度变更时其光圈亦作自动调整，故适用亮度变化的场合。自动光圈镜头有两类：一类是将一个视频信号及电源从摄象机输送到透镜来控制镜头上的光圈，称为视频输入型，另一类则利用摄象机上的直流电压来直接控制光圈，称为DC输入型。自动光圈镜头上的ALC(自动镜头控制)调整用于设定测光系统，可以整个画面的平均亮度，也可以画面中最亮部分(峰值)来设定基准信号强度，供给自动光圈调整使用。一般而言，ALC已在出厂时经过设定，可不作调整，但是对于拍摄景物中包含有一个亮度极高的目标时，明亮目标物之影像可能会造成"白电平削波"现象，而使得全部屏幕变成白色，此时可以调节ALC来变换画面。另外，自动光圈镜头装有光圈环，转动光圈环时，通过镜头的光通量会发生变化，光通量即光圈，一般用F表示，其取值为镜头焦距与镜头通光口径之比，即：F=f(焦距)/D(镜头实际有效口径)，F值越小，则光圈越大。
租赁业营业税怎么算 租赁业营业税改增值税税率的计算方法 1、营业税：按出租房屋租金收入的5%计算。 2、城建税：以营业税税额为计税依据，按适用税率缴纳城市建设维护税。纳税人所在地在市区的，税率为7%;所在地在县城、镇(县、市属镇的)，税率为5%;所在地不在市区。县城或镇(县、市属镇)的税率为1%。 3、教育费附加：按营业税的3%计算。 4、印花税：按签订租赁合同所载租赁金额的千分之一计算。税额不足一元的，按一元贴花。 5、房产税：按租金收入的12%计算。 6、企业所得税：按照企业所得税法的有关规定，企业应将出租房屋取得的租金收入并入企业收入总额计算缴纳企业所得税。 7、城镇土地使用税：拥有房屋产权的单位和个人，用于生产经营和出租的房屋坐落在城市、县城、建制镇、工矿区城镇土地使用税开征范围内的，应按房屋占地(含出租的院落占地)面积，依土地等级及适用的土地等级税额，计算缴纳城镇土地使用税。 延伸阅读： 为解决深圳低收入家庭住房困难，促进廉租住房、经济适用住房制度建设和住房租赁市场的健康发展，深圳市地方税务局根据国家出台的有关住房租赁税收政策，结合我市实际，从今年5月份开始对个人出租房屋税收政策进行了调整。
我市个人出租房屋涉及房地产税、营业税、城建税、教育费附加、个人所得税、印花税和城镇土地使用税等税种。原来我市个人出租 房屋税收采取综合征收率分两档征收： 1.月租金1000元(不含1000元)以下的，税收综合征收率为 4.1%(房产税4%、印花税0.1%)。 2.月租金1000元(含1000元)以上的，税收综合征收率为 8.22%(营业税3%、房产税4%、城市维护建设税0.03%、教育费附加0.09%、印花税0.1%、个人所得税1%)。 此次调整，主要是通过提高营业税的起征点(由原1000元上调至5000元)，降低营业税税率(由原3%降到1.5%)，降低个人所得税核 定征收率(由原1%降低为0.1%和0.44%两档)以及免征印花税和城镇 土地使用税的方式，将我市个人出租房屋税收综合征收率调整为以 下两档： 1.月租金<5000元，税收综合征收率为4.1%(房产税4%，个人所 得税0.1%); 2.月租金≥5000元，税收综合征收率为6%(营业税1.5%，房产 税4%，个人所得税0.44%，城市维护建设税0.015%，教育费附加 0.045%)。 本文介绍房屋租赁税率的项目和计算比率，可根据下文直接计算经营房屋租赁需要交纳哪些税费以及税费总额是多少。 房屋租赁经营需要交纳的税及税率 1、营业税：按出租房屋租金收入的5%计算。 2、城建税：以营业税税额为计税依据，按适用税率缴纳城市建 设维护税。纳税人所在地在市区的，税率为7%;所在地在县城、镇(县、市属镇的)，税率为5%;所在地不在市区。县城或镇(县、市属镇)的税率为1%。 3、教育费附加：按营业税的3%计算。
镜头参数 镜头是电视监控系统中必不可少的部件，镜头与CCD摄像机配合，可以将远距离目标成像在摄像机的CCD靶面上。 镜头的种类繁多，从焦距上分类，可分为短焦距、中焦距、和焦距和变焦距镜头；从视场的大小分类，可分为广角、标准、远摄镜头；从结构上分类，还可分为固定光圈定焦镜头、手动光圈定焦镜头、自动光圈定焦镜头、手动变焦镜头、自动光圈电动变焦镜头、电动三可变镜头（指光圈、焦距、聚焦这三者均可变）等类型。由于镜头选择得合适与否，直接关系到摄像质量的优劣，因此，在实际应用中必须合理选择镜头。 1 、镜头的参数 镜头的光学特性包括成像尺寸、焦距、相对孔径和视场角等几个参数，一般在镜头所附的说明书中都有注明，以下分别介绍。 A、成像尺寸 镜头一般可分为25. 4mm（lin）、16. 9mm（2/3in）、12. 7mm（1/2in）、8.47mm （1/3in）和6.35mm（1/4in）等几种规格，它们分别对应着不同的成像尺寸，选用镜头时，应使镜头的成像尺寸与摄像机的靶面尺寸大小相吻合。表2-1列出了几种常见CCD芯片的靶面尺寸，表中单位为mm。 表1-1 几种常见CCD芯片的靶面尺寸 由表1-1可知，12. 7mm（1/2in）的镜头应配12. 7mm（1/2in）靶面的摄像机，当镜头的成像尺寸比摄像机靶面的尺寸大时，不会影响成像，但实际成像的视场角要比该镜头的标称视场角小（参见图1-1），而当镜头的成像尺寸比摄像机靶面的尺寸小时，就会影响成像，表现为成像的画面四周被镜筒遮挡，在画面的4 个角上出现黑角（参见图1-1）。
(1)镜头成像尺寸比CCD靶面尺寸大 (2)镜头成像尺寸比CCD靶面尺寸 小 图1-1 镜头成像尺寸与CCD靶面尺寸的关系 B、焦距 在实际应用中，经常会有用户提出该摄像机能看清多么远的物体或该摄像机能看清多么宽的场景等问题，这实际上由所选用的镜头的焦距来决定，因为焦距决定了摄取图像的大小，用不同焦距的镜头对同一位置的某物体摄像时，配长焦距镜头的摄像机所摄取的景物尺寸就大，反之，配短焦距镜头的摄像机所摄取的景物尺寸就小。当然，被摄物体成像的清晰度还与所选用的CCD摄像机的分辨率及监视器的分辨率有关。 理论上，任何一种镜头均可拍摄很远的物体，并在CCD靶面上成一很小的像，但受CCD单元（像素）物理尺寸的限制，当成像小到小于CCD传感器的一个像素大小时，便不再能形成被摄物体的像，即使成像有几个像素大小，该像也难以辨识为何物。 当已知被摄物体的大小及该物体到镜头距离，则可根据下两式估算所选取配镜头的焦距： f=hD/H f=vD/V 式中，D为镜头中心到被摄物体的距离；H和V分别为被摄物体的水平尺寸和垂直尺寸；v为靶面成像的高度；h为靶面成像的水平宽度。
201９年新个人所得税全面归纳总结 一、纳税范围 下列各项个人所得，应当缴纳个人所得税: （一)工资、薪金所得； （二）劳务报酬所得; （三)稿酬所得; (四）特许权使用费所得; （五)经营所得; (六）利息、股息、红利所得； （七)财产租赁所得； (八）财产转让所得; （九)偶然所得。 居民个人取得前款第一项至第四项所得（以下称综合所得），按纳税年度合并计算个人所得税;非居民个人取得前款第一项至第四项所得,按月或者按次分项计算个人所得税. 二、适用税率 根据纳税范围，分三类税率： (一）综合所得,适用百分之三至百分之四十五得超额累进税率（附表1）; (二）经营所得，适用百分之五至百分之三十五得超额累进税率(附表2）； (三)利息、股息、红利所得，财产租赁所得，财产转让所得与偶然所得，适用比例税率，税率为百分之二十。" 三、应纳税所得额得计算 （一）综合所得
1、居民个人综合所得 居民个人取得综合所得,按年计算个人所得税；有扣缴义务人得,由扣缴义务人按月或者按次预扣预缴税款；需要办理汇算清缴得,应当在取得所得得次年三月一日至六月三十日内办理汇算清缴。 居民个人取得综合所得以每一纳税年度收入额减除费用六万元以及专项扣除、专项附加扣除与依法确定得其她扣除后得余额。 （１）居民工资、薪金所得个税预扣预缴办法 居民工资薪金所得有扣缴义务人得,由扣缴义务人按月预扣预缴税款： 本期应预扣预缴税额=（累计预扣预缴应纳税所得额×预扣率－速算扣除数）－累计减免税额-累计已预扣预缴税额（预扣率见附表1—１）累计预扣预缴应纳税所得额=累计收入—累计免税收入－累计减除费用-累计专项扣除－累计专项附加扣除—累计依法确定得其她扣除注:①累计减除费用，按照５000元/月乘以纳税人当年截至本月在本单位得任职受雇月份数计算； ②专项扣除，包括居民个人按照国家规定得范围与标准缴纳得基本养老保险、基本医疗保险、失业保险等社会保险费与住房公积金等; ③专项附加扣除,包括子女教育、继续教育、大病医疗、住房贷款利息或者住房租金、赡养老人等支出.（具体范围、标准见附表３） (2）全年一次性年终奖（财税〔2０18〕1６4号) 居民个人取得全年一次性奖金，暂不并入当年综合所得，以全年一次性奖金收入除以12个月得到得数额，按照月度税率表（附表1-３)，确定适用税率与速算扣除数，单独计算纳税。计算公式为: 应纳税额＝全年一次性奖金收入×适用税率－速算扣除数
交通运输服务应税项目 1.铁路运输服务 代码：010100 增值税税率：11% 填报说明：通过铁路运送货物或者旅客的运输业务活动 2.陆路旅客运输服务 代码：010201 增值税税率：11% 填报说明：铁路运输以外的陆路旅客运输业务活动。包括公路运输、缆车运输、城市轻轨运输、索道运输、地铁运输、。出租车公司向使用本公司自有出租车的出租车司机收取的管理费用，按照陆路运输服务缴纳增值税 3.陆路货物运输服务 代码： 010202增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：铁路运输以外的陆路货物运输业务活动。包括公路运输、地铁运输、城市轻轨运输、索道运输、缆车运输、 4.水路运输服务 代码： 010300增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：通过江、湖、川、河、天然、人工水道或者海洋航道运送货物或者旅客的运输业务活动。水路运输的程租、、期租业务,属于水路运输服务 5.航空运输服务 代码： 010400增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：通过空中航线运送货物或者旅客的运输业务活动。航空运输的湿租业务，属于航空运输服务。航天运输服务，按照航空运输服务缴纳增值税 6.管道运输服务 代码： 010500增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：通过管道设施输送气体、液体、固体物质的运输业务活动 注：无运输工具承运业务按照运输业务的实际承运人使用的运输工具划分到对应税目 邮政服务应税项目 7.邮政服务 代码： 020000增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：中国邮政集团公司及其所属邮政企业提供邮件寄递、邮政汇兑和机要通信、邮政基本服务的业务活动。包括邮政普遍服务、、邮政特殊服务和其他邮政服务 电信服务应税项目 8.基础电信服务 代码： 030100增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：利用固网、互联网，提供语音通话服务的业务活动，以及出租或者出售带宽、移动网、卫星、波长、网络元素的业务活动 9.增值电信服务 代码： 030200增值税税率： 6% 填报说明：利用固网、有线电视网络，提供短信和彩信服务、卫星、互联网接入服务、互联网、电子数据和信息的传输及应用服务、移动网、业务活动。卫星电视信号落地转接服务，按照增值电信服务缴纳增值税 建筑服务应税项目 10.工程服务 代码： 040100增值税税率： 11% 填报说明：新建、改建各种建筑物、构筑物的工程作业，包括与建筑物相连的各种设备或
监控摄像头的选择与基本参数 2010-02-22 摄像机镜头是视频监视系统的最关键设备，它的质量（指标）优劣直接影响摄像机的整机指标，因此，摄像机镜头的选择是否恰当既关系到系统质量，又关系到工程造价。 镜头相当于人眼的晶状体，如果没有晶状体，人眼看不到任何物体；如果没有镜头，那么摄像头所输出的图像就是白茫茫的一片，没有清晰的图像输出，这与我们家用摄像机和照相机的原理是一致的。当人眼的肌肉无法将晶状体拉伸至正常位置时，也就是人们常说的近视眼，眼前的景物就变得模糊不清；摄像头与镜头的配合也有类似现象，当图像变得不清楚时，可以调整摄像头的后焦点，改变CCD芯片与镜头基准面的距离（相当于调整人眼晶状体的位置），可以将模糊的图像变得清晰。由此可见，镜头在闭路监控系统中的作用是非常重要的。工程设计人员和施工人员都要经常与镜头打交道：设计人员要根据物距、成像大小计算镜头焦距，施工人员经常进行现场调试，其中一部分就是把镜头调整到最佳状态。 １、镜头的分类 按外形功能分按尺寸大小分按光圈分按变焦类型分按焦距长矩分球面镜头 1 25mm 自动光圈电动变焦长焦距镜头非球面镜头 1/2” 3mm 手动光圈手动变焦标准镜头针孔镜头 1/3” 8.5mm 固定光圈固定焦距广角镜头鱼眼镜头 2/3” 17mm （１）以镜头安装分类：所有的摄像机镜头均是螺纹口的，CCD摄像机的镜头安装有两种工业标准，即C安装座和CS安装座。两者螺纹部分相同，但两者从镜头到感光表面的距离不同。C安装座：从镜头安装基准面到焦点的距离是17.526mm。CS安装座：特种C安装，此时应将摄像机前部的垫圈取下再安装镜头。其镜头安装基准面到焦点的距离是12.5mm。如果要将一个C安装座镜头安装到一个CS安装座摄像机上
税目税率征收范围常见征税业务一、交通运输 业3% 陆路运输、 水路运输、 航空运输、 管道运输、 装卸搬运 陆运：通过铁路、公路、缆车、索道及其他陆路运送货物或旅客的运输业务。 水运：有通过江、河、湖、川、等天然、人工水道或海洋航道运送货物或旅客的运输业务。打捞，比照水路运输征税。 航运：通过空中航线运送货物或旅客的运输业务。通用航空业务、航空地面服务业务，比照航空运输征税。 管运：通过管道设施输送气体、液体、固体物资的运输业务。 装卸搬运：使用装卸搬运工具或人力、畜力将货物在运输工具之间、装卸现场之间或运输工具之间与装卸现场之间进行装卸和搬 运的业务。搬家业务比照“装卸搬运”征税。 二、建筑业3% 建筑、 安装、 修缮、 装饰及其他工程作业 建筑：新建、改建、扩建各种建筑物、构筑物的工程作业，包括与建筑物相连的各种设备或支柱、操作平台的安装或装设工程作 业，以及各种窑炉和金属结构工程作业在内。 安装：生产设备、动力设备、起重设备、运输设备、传动设备、医疗实验设备及其他各种设备的装配作业、安置工程作业（包括 与设备相连的工作台、梯子、栏杄的装设工程作业和被安装设备的绝缘、防腐、保温、油漆等工程作业）、有线电视安装费。 修缮：对建筑物、构筑物、进行修补、加固、养护、改善，使之恢复原来的使用价值或延长其使用期限的工程作业。 装饰：有对建筑物、构筑物进行修饰，使之美观或有特定用途的工程作业。 其他工程作业：代办电信工程、水利工程、道路修建工程、钻井工程、平整土地、搭脚手架、疏浚工程、爆破工程、拆除建筑物 或构筑物工程、绿化工程等工程作业。 三、娱乐业20% 歌舞厅、卡拉OK厅 为娱乐活动提供场所和服务的业务（包括在顾客进行娱乐活动的同时提供的饮食服务和饭馆、餐厅及其他饮食场所，为顾客在就 餐的同时进行的自娱自乐形式的歌舞活动所提供的服务）。←（包括夜总会、练歌房）、音乐茶座（包括酒吧）、网吧、高尔夫球、 游艺（如射击、狩猎、跑马、游戏机、蹦极、卡丁车、热气球、动力伞、射箭、飞镖） 5% 保龄球、台球 为顾客进行台球、保龄球活动提供场所和服务的业务。 四、服务业5% 代理业、旅店业、饮 食业、旅游业、仓储 业、租赁业、广告业 务及其他服务业 代理业：代购代销货物、代办进出口、介绍服务、其他代理服务的业务。 旅店业：提供住宿服务的业务。 饮食业：有通过同时提供饮食和饮食场所的方式为顾客提供饮食消费服务的业务。 旅游业：为旅游者安排食宿、交通工具和提供导游等旅游服务的业务。 仓储业：利用仓库、货物或其他场所代客贮放、保管货物的业务。 租赁业：在约定的时间内将场地、房屋、物品、设备或设施等转让他人使用的业务。将承租的场地、物品、设备等再转租给他人 的行为，按“租赁”征税。融资租赁，不按本税目征税。 广告业务：利用图书、报纸、杂志、广播、电视、电影、幻灯、路牌、招贴、橱窗、霓虹灯、灯箱等形式为介绍商品、经营服务 项目、文体节目或通告、声明等事项进行宣传和提供相关服务的业务。 其他服务业：沐浴、理发、洗染、照相、美术、裱画、誉写、打字、镌刻、计算、测试、装潢、打包、设计、制图、咨询、试验、 化验、晒图、测绘、勘探等服务性业务。航空勘探、钻井(打井)勘探、爆破勘探、不按本税目征税。
摄像机镜头的具体详细 参数解析 -CAL-FENGHAI.-(YICAI)-Company One1
镜头参数 镜头是电视监控系统中必不可少的部件，镜头与CCD摄像机配合，可以将远距离目标成像在摄像机的CCD靶面上。 镜头的种类繁多，从焦距上分类，可分为短焦距、中焦距、和焦距和变焦距镜头；从视场的大小分类，可分为广角、标准、远摄镜头；从结构上分类，还可分为固定光圈定焦镜头、手动光圈定焦镜头、自动光圈定焦镜头、手动变焦镜头、自动光圈电动变焦镜头、电动三可变镜头（指光圈、焦距、聚焦这三者均可变）等类型。由于镜头选择得合适与否，直接关系到摄像质量的优劣，因此，在实际应用中必须合理选择镜头。 1 、镜头的参数 镜头的光学特性包括成像尺寸、焦距、相对孔径和视场角等几个参数，一般在镜头所附的说明书中都有注明，以下分别介绍。 A、成像尺寸 镜头一般可分为25. 4mm（lin）、16. 9mm（2/3in）、12. 7mm（1/2in）、（1/3in）和（1/4in）等几种规格，它们分别对应着不同的成像尺寸，选用镜头时，应使镜头的成像尺寸与摄像机的靶面尺寸大小相吻合。表2-1列出了几种常见CCD芯片的靶面尺寸，表中单位为mm。
表1-1 几种常见CCD芯片的靶面尺寸 ? 由表1-1可知，12. 7mm（1/2in）的镜头应配12. 7mm（1/2in）靶面的摄像机，当镜头的成像尺寸比摄像机靶面的尺寸大时，不会影响成像，但实际成像的视场角要比该镜头的标称视场角小（参见图1-1），而当镜头的成像尺寸比摄像机靶面的尺寸小时，就会影响成像，表现为成像的画面四周被镜筒遮挡，在画面的4个角上出现黑角（参见图1-1）。
营业税税目税率表 营改增试点地区税目税率对照表
一、建筑业3% 建筑、安装、修缮、装饰及其他工程作业 建筑：新建、改建、扩建各种建筑物、构筑物的工程作业，包括与建筑物相连的各种设备或支柱、操作平台的安装或装设工程作 业，以及各种窑炉和金属结构工程作业在内。 自建自用建筑物的自建行为，以及出租或投资入股的自建建筑物不是建筑业的征 税范围） 安装：生产设备、动力设备、起重设备、运输设备、传动设备、医疗实验设备及其他各种设备的装配作业、安置工程作业（包括
与设备相连的工作台、梯子、栏杄的装设工程作业和被安装设备的绝缘、防腐、保温、油漆等工程作业）、有线电视安装费。 修缮：对建筑物、构筑物、进行修补、加固、养护、改善，使之恢复原来的使用价值或延长其使用期限的工程作业 装饰：有对建筑物、构筑物进行修饰，使之美观或有特定用途的工程作业。 其他工程作业：代办电信工程、水利工程、道路修建工程、钻井工程、平整土地、搭脚手架、疏浚工程、爆破工程、拆除建筑物或构筑物工程、绿化工程等工程作业。纳税人提供的矿山爆破、穿孔、表面附着物（包括岩层、土层、沙层等）剥离和清理劳务， 以及矿井、巷道构筑劳务也属于此税目的征收范围。 二、金融保险业5% 金融： 贷款业务（包括自有资金贷款和转贷业务） 、金融商品转让业务（包括转让外汇、有价证券、非货物期货的所有权的业务） 、金融经纪业务、邮政储蓄业务、其他金融业务（包括银行结算和票据贴现业务） 。境内外资金融机构从事的离岸银行业务，应在我 国缴纳营业税（存款或购入金融商品行为，不征收营业税） 保险：人身保险业务、责任保险业务。 三、文化体育业3% 体育业： 表演：单位和个人进行戏剧、歌舞、时装、健美、杂技、民间艺术、武术体育等表演活动的业务。 经营游览场所：公园、动（植）物园及其他各种游览场所销售门票的业务。 其他文化业： 培训活动、举办文学、艺术、科技、讲座、演讲、报告会、图书馆的图书和资料借阅等业务。*【提示】播映业务、会展业务已“营改增”。 体育业：单位和个人为举办体育比赛或为体育比赛或活动提供场所的业务。 四、娱乐业5%-20% 歌舞厅、卡拉OK厅等 20%为娱乐活动提供场所和服务的业务（包括在顾客进行娱乐活动的同时提供的饮食服务和饭馆、餐厅及其他饮食场所，为顾客在就餐的同时进行的自娱自乐形式的歌舞活动所提供的服务）。←（包括夜总会、练歌房）、音乐茶座（包括酒吧）、网吧、高尔夫球、 游艺（如射击、狩猎、跑马、游戏机、蹦极、卡丁车、热气球、动力伞、射箭、飞镖）5% 保龄球、台球为顾客进行台球、保龄球活动提供场所和服务的业务。 五、服务业5% 代理业、旅店业、饮食业、旅游业、仓储业、租赁业、广告业务及其他服务业
2019年新个人所得税全面归纳总结 一、纳税范围 下列各项个人所得，应当缴纳个人所得税： （一）工资、薪金所得； （二）劳务报酬所得； （三）稿酬所得； （四）特许权使用费所得； （五）经营所得； （六）利息、股息、红利所得； （七）财产租赁所得； （八）财产转让所得； （九）偶然所得。 居民个人取得前款第一项至第四项所得（以下称综合所得），按纳税年度合并计算个人所得税；非居民个人取得前款第一项至第四项所得，按月或者按次分项计算个人所得税。 二、适用税率 根据纳税范围，分三类税率： （一）综合所得，适用百分之三至百分之四十五的超额累进税率（附表1）； （二）经营所得，适用百分之五至百分之三十五的超额累进税率（附表2）； （三）利息、股息、红利所得，财产租赁所得，财产转让所得和偶然所得，适用比例税率，税率为百分之二十。”
三、应纳税所得额的计算 （一）综合所得 1、居民个人综合所得 居民个人取得综合所得，按年计算个人所得税；有扣缴义务人的，由扣缴义务人按月或者按次预扣预缴税款；需要办理汇算清缴的，应当在取得所得的次年三月一日至六月三十日内办理汇算清缴。 居民个人取得综合所得以每一纳税年度收入额减除费用六万元以及专项扣除、专项附加扣除和依法确定的其他扣除后的余额。 （1）居民工资、薪金所得个税预扣预缴办法 居民工资薪金所得有扣缴义务人的，由扣缴义务人按月预扣预缴税款：本期应预扣预缴税额=（累计预扣预缴应纳税所得额×预扣率-速算扣除数)-累计减免税额-累计已预扣预缴税额（预扣率见附表1-1） 累计预扣预缴应纳税所得额=累计收入-累计免税收入-累计减除费用-累计专项扣除-累计专项附加扣除-累计依法确定的其他扣除 注：①累计减除费用，按照5000元/月乘以纳税人当年截至本月在本单位的任职受雇月份数计算； ②专项扣除，包括居民个人按照国家规定的范围和标准缴纳的基本养老保险、基本医疗保险、失业保险等社会保险费和住房公积金等； ③专项附加扣除，包括子女教育、继续教育、大病医疗、住房贷款利息或者住房租金、赡养老人等支出。（具体范围、标准见附表3） （2）全年一次性年终奖（财税〔2018〕164号）
2019年增值税税率表
2019年3月5日上午9时，十三届全国人大二次会议开幕，国务院总理作政府工作报告。 报告明确，深化增值税改革，将制造业等行业原有16%的税率降至13%，将交通运输业、建筑业等行业现行10%的税率降为9%，确保主要行业税负明显降低。 小编按改革后的新税率将《增值税税率、征收率、预征率表》进行了调整。 最新最全增值税税率表
增值税税率一共有4档：13%，9%，6%，0%。 销售交通运输服务、邮政、基础电信、建筑、不动产租赁服务，销售不动产，转让土地使用权以及销售或进口正列举的农产品等货物（易混项见附件1）税率为9%； 加工修理修配劳务、有形动产租赁服务和进口税率为13%； 销售无形资产（除土地使用权）为6%，出口货物税率为0； 其余的：货物是13%，服务是6%。
征收率
一共有2档，3%和5%，一般是3%，除了财政部和国家税务总局另有规定的。 1、5%：主要有销售不动产，不动产租赁，转让土地使用权，提供劳务派遣服务、安全保护服务选择差额纳税的。货物销售里没有5%征收率的。 2、征收率绝大多数是3%，容易与5%记混的单独记忆一下：建筑服务，有形动产租赁，小规模纳税人提供劳务派遣服务、安全保护服务未选择差额纳税的。 3、两个减按：个人出租住房，按照5%的征收率减按1.5%计算应纳税额。销售自己使用过的固定资产、旧货，按照3%征收率减按2%征收。 4、小规模纳税人以及选择简易计税的一般纳税人（见附件2）计算税款时使用征收率。 预征率 预征率有3档，2%，3%和5%。 简易计税的预征率基本上与征收率一致。销售不动产和销售自行开发房地产的预征率简易计税与一般计税相同。 注意：换算成不含税价时，分母为税率或征收率，而不是预征率。 如纳税人出租不动产适用一般计税方法计税的： 应预缴税款＝含税销售额÷（1+9%）×预征率3%
上海炫企注册公司：https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html, 营业税税率表（2015版） 税目征收范围税率 一、交通运输业陆路运输、水路运输、航空运输、管道运输、装卸搬运3% 二、建筑业建筑、安装、修缮、装饰及其他工程作业3% 三、金融保险业贷款、金融商品转让、金融经纪业、邮政储蓄业务和 其他金融业务 5% 四、邮电通信业包括基础电信业务和增值电信业务3% 五、文化体育业文化业、体育业3% 六、娱乐业歌厅、舞厅、卡拉OK歌舞厅、音乐茶座、台球、高尔 夫球、保龄球、游艺 5%~20% 七、服务业代理业、旅店业、饮食业、旅游业、仓储业、租赁业、 广告业及其他服务业 5% 八、转让无形资产转让土地使用权、专利权、非专利技术、商标权、著作 权、商誉 5% 九、销售不动产销售建筑物及其他土地附着物5% 备注： 一、建筑业特殊项目 1、自建自用建筑物，其自建行为不是建筑业的征税范围； 2、出租或投资入股的自建建筑物，不是建筑业的征税范围； 3、钻井勘探、爆破勘探按建筑业征税。 二、文化体育业特殊项目 出租文化场所属于服务业—租赁业。 三、娱乐业特殊项目 对中国境外单位或个人在境外向境内单位和个人提供的娱乐业劳务，不征收营业税。 四、服务业特殊项目 1、交通部门有偿转让高速公路收费权行为按服务业—租赁业税目征税； 2、自2012年1月1日起，旅店业和饮食业纳税人销售非现场消费的食品应当缴纳增值税，不缴纳营业税。 五、转让无形资产特殊项目 1、土地租赁按照服务业—租赁业征税； 2、以无形资产投资入股，参与接受投资方利润分配、共同承担投资风险的行为，不征收营业税。投资后转让其股权的也不征收营业税。 六、销售不动产特殊经营项目 以不动产投资入股，参与利润分配、共担风险不征营业税，投资后转让股权也不征收营业税。
摄像机的选择和主要参数 摄像机的选择和主要参数 在闭路监控系统中，摄像机又称摄像头或（）即电荷耦合器件。严格来说，摄像机是摄像头和镜头的总称，而实际上，摄像头与镜头大部分是分开购买的，用户根据目标物体的大小和摄像头与物体的距离，通过计算得到镜头的焦距，所以每个用户需要的镜头都是依据实际情况而定的，不要以为摄像机（头）上已经有镜头。 摄像头的主要传感部件是，它具有灵敏度高、畸变小、寿命长、抗震动、抗磁场、体积小、无残影等特点，是电耦合器件（）的简称，它能够将光线变为电荷并可将电荷储存及转移，也可将储存之电荷取出使电压发生变化，因此是理想的摄像元件。是代替摄像管传感器的新型器件。 的工作原理是：被摄物体反射光线，传播到镜头，经镜头聚焦到芯片上，根据光的强弱积聚相应的电荷，经周期性放电，产生表示一幅幅画面的电信号，经过滤波、放大处理，通过摄像头的输出端子输出一个标准的复合视频信号。这个标准的视频信号同家用的录像机、机、家用摄像机的视频输出是一样的，所以也可以录像或接到电视机上观看。 摄像机的选择和分类芯片就像人的视网膜，是摄像头的核心。目前我国尚无能力制造，市场上大部分摄像头采用的是日本、、松下、等公司生产的芯片，现在韩国也有能力生产，但质量就要稍逊一筹。因为芯片生产时产生不同等级，各厂家获得途径不同等原因，造成采集效果也大不相同。在购买时，可以采取如下方法检测：接通电源，连接视频电缆到监视器，关闭镜头光圈，看图像全黑时是否有亮点，屏幕上雪花大不大，这些是检测芯片最简单直接的方法，而且不需要其它专用仪器。然后可以打开光圈，看一个静物，如果是彩色摄像头，最好摄取一个色彩鲜艳的物体，查看监视器上的图像是否偏色，扭曲，色彩或灰度是否平滑。好的可以很好的还原景物的色彩，使物体看起来清晰自然；而残次品的图像就会有偏色现象，即使面对一张白纸，图像也会显示蓝色或红色。个别由于生产车间的灰尘，靶面上会有杂质，在一般情况下，杂质不会影响图像，但在弱光或显微摄像时，细小的灰尘也会造成不良的后果，如果用于此类工作，一定要仔细挑选。 １、依成像色彩划分彩色摄像机：适用于景物细部辨别，如辨别衣着或景物的颜色。黑白摄像机：适用于光线不充足地区及夜间无法安装照明设备的地区，在仅监视景物的位置或移动时，可选用黑白摄像机。 ２、依分辨率灵敏度等划分影像像素在万以下的为一般型，其中尤以万像素（*）、分辨率为线的产品最普遍。影像像素在万以上的高分辨率型。 ３、按靶面大小划分芯片已经开发出多种尺寸：目前采用的芯片大多数为"和"。在购买摄像头时，特别是对摄像角度有比较严格要求的时候，靶面的大小，与镜头的配合情况将直接影响视场角的大小和图像的清晰度。英寸靶面尺寸为宽*高，对角线。英
附件2 个人所得税基础信息表（B表） 国家税务总局监制
填表说明： 一、适用范围 本表适用于自然人纳税人基础信息的填报。 各地税务机关可根据本地实际，由自然人纳税人初次向税务机关办理相关涉税事宜时填报本表；初次申报后，以后仅需在信息发生变化时填报。 二、本表各栏填写如下： (一)表头栏 1.姓名：填写纳税人姓名。中国境内无住所个人，其姓名应当分别用中、外两种文字 填写。 2.身份证件类型：填写纳税人有效身份证件（照）名称。中国居民，填写身份证、军 官证、士兵证等证件名称；中国境内无住所个人，填写护照、港澳居民来往内地通 行证、台湾居民来往大陆通行证等证照名称。 3.身份证件号码：填写身份证件上的号码。 4.纳税人类型：纳税人根据自身情况在对应框内打“√”，可多选。 （1）有任职受雇单位：是指纳税人有固定任职受雇单位。 （2）无任职受雇单位（不含股东投资者）：是指纳税人为自由职业者，没有与任 何单位签订任职受雇合同；不含企业股东、个体工商户、个人独资企业投资者、合 伙企业合伙人、承包承租经营者。 （3）投资者：是指有对外投资的纳税人。 （4）无住所个人：是指在中国境内无住所的纳税人。“无住所”是相对有住所而 言；在中国境内有住所的个人，是指因户籍、家庭、经济利益关系而在中国境内习 惯性居住的个人。 5.任职受雇单位名称及纳税人识别号：填写纳税人签订任职受雇合同的单位名称全称 及其在税务机关办理登记时的纳税人识别号。前列填名称，后列填纳税人识别号。 与多家单位签订合同的，须分行列示。没有则不填。 6.“三费一金”缴纳情况：纳税人根据自己缴纳社会保险费情况在“基本养老保险费”、 “基本医疗保险费”、“失业保险费”、“住房公积金”对应框内打“√”；如果都没有缴纳的，在“无”栏打“√”。 7.电子邮箱：填写税务机关能与纳税人联系的电子邮箱地址。 8.境内联系地址、邮政编码：填写税务机关能与纳税人联系的有效中国境内联系地址 和邮政编码。 9.联系电话：填写税务机关能与纳税人联系的电话。 10.职业：填写纳税人所从事的职业。职业分类按劳动和社会保障部门的国标填写。 11.职务：填写纳税人在任职受雇单位所担任的职务，在“高层”、“中层”、“普通”三 项前选择其一打“√”。 12.学历：填写纳税人取得的最终学历。 13.是否残疾人/烈属/孤老：符合本栏情况的，在对应框前打“√”；否则，在“否” 栏打“√”。 (二)有境外所得的纳税人填写栏：纳税人从中国境外取得所得的填写本栏；没有则不填。 纳税人在选填此栏时，应根据《国家税务总局关于印发〈个人所得税自行纳税申报办法（试行）〉的通知》第十一条第二款“从中国境外取得所得的，向中国境内户籍所在地主管税务机关申报。在中国境内有户籍，但户籍所在地与中国境内经常居住地不一
最新增值税税率表大全 增值税税率说明： 一、一般纳税人生产下列货物，可按简易办法依照6% 征收率计算缴纳增值税。 （一）县以下小型水力发电单位生产的电力; （二）建筑用和生产建筑材料所用的砂、土、石料; （三）以自己采掘的砂、土、石料或其他矿物连续生产的砖、瓦、石灰; （四）原料中掺有煤矸石、石煤、粉煤灰、烧煤锅炉的炉底渣及其他废渣（不包括高炉水渣）生产的墙体材料; （五）用微生物、微生物代谢产物、动物毒素、人或动物的血液或组织制成的生物制品。 二、金属矿采选产品、非金属矿采选产品增值税税率由 17%调整为13% 。 三、增值税一般纳税人销售自来水可按6%的税率征收。 四、文物商店和拍卖行的货物销售按6%的税率征收
五、寄售商店代销寄售物品、典当业销售的死当物品按 6%乃奥收魇铡六、单位和个人经营者销售自己使用过的游艇、摩托车和应征消费税的汽车，按6%的征收率计算缴纳 增值税。 七、销售自己使用过的其他属于货物的固定资产，暂免征收增值税。注：“使用过的其他属于货物的固定资产”应同时具备以下几个条件： （一）属于企业固定资产目录所列货物； （二）企业按固定资产管理，并确已使用过的货物；销售价格不超过其原值的货物。对不同时具备上述条件，无论会计制度规定如何核算，均应按6%的征收率征收增值税。 八、增值税小规模纳税人销售进口货物，税率为6%，提供加工、修理修配劳务，税率为6%。 九、邮政部门以外的其他单位与个人销售集邮商品、征收增值税。 十、增值税一般纳税人向小规模纳税人购买的农业产 品，可视为免税农业产品按10%的扣除率计算进项税额。
、工厂回收的废旧物资按照10%的扣除率计算进项
摄像头参数详细介绍 [日期： 2007-06-06 ] https://www.doczj.com/doc/2d2113181.html, 千家网 [字体：大中 小] 一、不可小瞧的镜头 镜头是摄像机的眼睛，为了适应不同的监控环境和要求，需要配置不同规格的镜头。比如在室内的重点监视，要进行清晰且大视场角度的图像捕捉，得配置广角镜头；在室外的停车场，既要看到停车场全貌，又要能看到汽车的细部，这时候需要广角和变焦镜头，在边境线、海防线的监控，需要超远图像拍摄。 1、镜头的主要参数 焦距（f）：焦距是镜头和感光元件之间的距离，通过改变镜头的焦距，可以改变镜头的放大倍数，改变拍摄图像的大小。当物体与镜头的距离很远的时候，我们可用下面公式表达：镜头的放大倍数≈焦距/物距。增加镜头的焦距，放大倍数增大了，可以将远景拉近，画面的范围小了，远景的细节看得更清楚了；如果减少镜头的焦距，放大倍数减少了，画面的范围扩大了，能看到更大的场景。 镜头的主要参数 视场角：在工程实际中，我们常用水平视场角来反映画面的拍摄范围。焦距f越大，视场角越小，在感光元件上形成的画面范围越小；反之，焦距f越小，视场角越大，在感光元件上形成的画面范围越大。 光圈：光圈安装在镜头的后部，光圈开得越大，通过镜头的光量就越大，图像的清晰度越高；光圈开得越小，通过镜头的光量就越小，图像的清晰度越低。通常用F（光通量）来表示。F=焦距（f）/通光孔径。在摄像机的技术指标中，
我们可以常常看到6mm/F1.4这样的参数，它表示镜头的焦距为6mm，光通量为1. 4，这时我们可以很容易地计算出通光孔径为4.29mm。在焦距f相同的情况下，F值越小，光圈越大，到达CCD芯片的光通量就越大，镜头越好。 2、镜头的分类 按视角的大小分类 按光圈分类 二、提高图像清晰的根本在于提高摄像机的感光能力 1、感光元件的作用 目前，主流监控摄像机的感光元件采用CCD元件，实际上就是光电转换元件。和以前的CMOS感光元件相比，CCD的感光度是CMOS的3到10倍，因此CCD芯片可以接受到更多的光信号，转换为电信号后，经视频处理电路滤波、放大形成视频信号输出。接受到的光信号越强，视频信号的幅值就越大。视频信号连接到
转让：营业税5%，契税3%，城建税0.25%，教育费附加0.15%。共8.4%。 出租：对企事业单位、社会团体以及其他社会组织出租非住房（包括门面、写字楼等）取得的租金收入，按照13.7%的综合征收率计征税费（不含企业所得税）。其中，房产税8%，营业税5%，城市维护建设税0.35%，教育费附加0.15%，地方教育附加0.1%，印花税0.1%。城建税以实际缴纳的增值税、消费税、营业税为基础按照法定比例缴纳，市区7%、县城和镇5%、其他地区1%。教育费附加以实际缴纳的增值税、消费税、营业税为基础按照3%缴纳 甘肃省契税征收管理办法 经２００１年９月１１日省政府第１３４次常务会议讨论通过，现予公布，自公布之日起施行。 二００一年九月二十日 第一条根据《中华人民共和国契税暂行条例》和《中华人民共和国契税暂行条例细则》，结合本省实际，制定本办法。 第二条本省境内土地使用权、房屋所有权发生转移时，承受的企业单位、事业单位、国家机关、军事单位和社会团体以及其他组织和个体经营者及其他个人为契税的纳税人，应当依照本办法的规定缴纳契税。 以划拨方式取得土地使用权的，经批准转让房地产时，房地产转让双方均为纳税人。 第三条契税的征收范围包括国有土地使用权出让、土地使用权转让（包括出售、赠与和交换）、房屋买卖、房屋赠与和房屋交换。其中土地使用权转让，不包括农村集体土地承包经营权的转移。 下列转移方式，视同土地使用权转让、房屋买卖和房屋赠与征税： （一）以土地、房屋权属抵债或作价投资、入股的； （二）以获奖或者转移无形资产方式承受土地、房屋权属的； （三）建设工程转让时发生土地使用权转移的；
（四）以其他方式事实构成土地、房屋权属转移的。 第四条契税由土地、房屋所在地的财政部门负责征收。财政部门根据工作需要，可以委托有关单位代征或代扣代缴契税。 土地管理部门、房产管理部门应当向财政部门提供有关资料，并协助财政部门依法征收契税。 财政部门可按契税征收额的５％提取征收手续费，代征手续费的提取使用和管理按有关规定执行。 第五条契税税率为３％。 第六条契税的计税依据： （一）国有土地使用权出让、土地使用权出售、房屋买卖为成交价格； （二）土地使用权赠与、房屋赠与，由财政部门参照同类土地使用权出售、房屋买卖的市场价格或评估价格核定； （三）土地使用权交换、房屋交换为所交换的土地使用权、房屋价格的差额； （四）以划拨方式取得土地使用权的，经批准转让房地产时，除承受方按规定缴纳契税外，房地产转让者应当补缴契税，计税依据为补缴的土地使用权出让费用或者土地收益； （五）承受土地、房屋部分权属的，为所承受部分权属的成交价格；当部分权属改为全部权属时，为全部权属的成交价格，原已缴纳的部分权属的税款应予扣除。 前款成交价格明显低于市场价格并且价格的差额明显不合理又无正当理由的，由征收部门参照市场价格核定。 第七条契税应纳税额，依照本办法规定的税率和计税依据计算征收。应纳税额计算公式： 应纳税额＝计税依据×税率 应纳税额以人民币计算。转移土地、房屋权属以外汇结算的，按照纳税义务发生之日中国人民银行公布的人民币市场汇率中间价折合成人民币计算。 第八条有下列情形之一的，免征契税： （一）国家机关、事业单位、社会团体、军事单位承受土地、房屋用于办公、教学、医疗、科研和军事设施以及用于非营利性的食堂、学生宿舍、实验室、档案资料室、库房、会议室、接待室、图书馆、住院部、体育场所的； （二）城镇职工按规定标准面积第一次购买公有住房的； （三）因不可抗力灭失住房而重新购买住房的； （四）土地、房屋被县级以上人民政府征用、占用后，重新承受土地、房屋权属，其成交价格或补偿面积没有超出规定补偿标准的； （五）纳税人承受荒山、荒沟、荒丘、荒滩土地使用权，用于农、林、牧、渔生产的； （六）财政部规定的其他减征、免征的项目。 第九条经批准减征、免征契税的纳税人改变有关土地、房屋的用途，不再属于本办法第八条规定的减征、免征契税范围的，应当补缴已经减征、免征的税款。 第十条土地使用权交换、房屋交换，交换价格不相等的，由多交付货币、实物、无形资产或其他经济利益的一方缴纳税款。交换价格相等的，免征契税。 第十一条契税纳税义务发生时间，为纳税人签订土地、房屋权属转移合同的当天，或纳税人取得其他具有合同效力的契约、协议、合约、单据、确认书以及由省人民政府土地主管部门、房地产主管部门确定的其他凭证的当天。 纳税人因改变用途应补缴已经减征、免征的税款，其纳税义务发生时间为改变有关土地、房屋用途的当天。 第十二条纳税人应当自纳税义务发生之日起１０日内，向土地、房屋所在地的财政部门办理纳税申报，并在财政部门核定的期限内缴纳税款。符合减征或免征契税规定的，应当办理减征或免征契税手续。 第十三条纳税人办理纳税事宜后，财政部门应当向纳税人开具契税完税凭证。纳税人应持契税完税免税凭证和其他规定的文件材料，依法向土地管理部门、房地产管理部门办理有关土地、房屋的权属变更