2020年浙江下半年教师资格考试成绩查询时间12月10日起

发布时间:2020-09-05


浙江2020年下半年教师资格考试成绩查询时间,有小伙伴想要了解的吗?下面51题库考试学习网就和大家一起来了解看看,关于2020年浙江教师资格考试成绩查询相关内容,感兴趣的小伙伴赶紧来围观吧。

考试成绩查询

本次考试成绩可于12月上中旬通过教育部中小学教师资格考试网站(ntce.neea.edu.cn)查询。具体时间以教育部考试中心公布为准。

查询流程

1.登录中小学教师资格考试网,在首页右下角找到考生服务

2.点击考生服务中的成绩查询按钮,跳入成绩查询界面,填写个人姓名、证件号以及验证码,点击查询

3.查到成绩。

笔试成绩合格标准

教师资格证笔试卷面分满分为150分,按标准转换为120分制的70分为通过。教育部考试中心根据考试标准和当次考试情况,确定各科目全国统一的合格分数线。由于各个科目难度存在差异,其合格分数线不尽相同。为统一各科目的合格分数线,采用线性转换的方法,将考生0~150分量表上的原始成绩换算为0~120分量表上的转换分,并使各科目的合格分数线统一转换为70分。也就是说教师资格证合格分数线为70分。

成绩复查

考生如对本人的考试成绩有异议,可自成绩查询之日起10个工作日内向当地考试机构提出复核申请,由当地考试机构集中报送省教育考试院,再报送教育部考试中心统一复查,复核时仅复核登记分数是否准确。

成绩有效期

在教师资格证考试中,关于有效期有两种,具体详情如下:

①笔试成绩有效期。单科成绩有效期两年,在两年时间内全部科目成绩合格,才有资格报考教师资格证面试。

②合格证明有效期。教师资格面试成绩有效期即为合格证明有效期,笔试、面试全部合格后,方能获取合格证明。合格证明有效期为3年,有效期以考试合格证明上标示的时间为准。

教师资格考试成绩有效期计算

一般而言教师资格证保留两年,这个两年从单科取得合格之日起算。教师资格证这个合格之日,一般在教师资格证成绩查询系统有两个时间节点,一个是每年的630日,一个是每年的1231日,参加上半年考试的考生,成绩在630日过期,参加下半年考试的考生,成绩在1231日过期。考生可以登录教师资格证成绩查询系统查询到成绩是否还在有效期内,是否还有保留。参加教师资格证面试报名需要全部笔试成绩合格,且成绩还在有效期内,教师资格证考试每年下半年的面试报名在12月中上旬,而考试时间到了次年1月,这时候,很多成绩在当年1231日过期的考生就有了疑问:如果教师资格证笔试成绩在当年1231日过期,是否还能报考当年下半年的教师资格证面试?这种情况是能报考的,只要在教师资格证面试报名的时候,你的成绩还在有效期内即可报考,一般下半年的教师资格证面试都是12月中上旬报名,报名时,成绩仍在有效期内。如果成绩已经失效,系统会自动检测到你的成绩无效,不能报名。


下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

(b) Calculate the taxable benefit in 2005/06 if Jan were to use the accommodation offered by his employer. You

may assume that the rules for calculating benefits are the same as in 2004/05. (3 marks)

正确答案:
(b) Benefit – accommodation
If Jan accepts the offer, he will occupy the building for a period of eight months in the tax year 2005/06 (from 6 August 2005
– 5 April 2006). The benefit will last for six months.
The taxable benefit is the higher of:
(i) The rent borne by the company                                                      = 600 x 6 = 3,600
(ii) The annual (rateable) value                                                            = 6,000 x 6/12 = 3,000
i.e. £3,600.
In addition, as the property costs in excess of £75,000, an additional benefit arises. The excess is subject to the official rate
of interest, and is calculated as follows:
(155,000 – 75,000) x 5% = 4,000 x 6/12                                         = 2,000
Total taxable benefit is £3,600 + £2,000 = £5,600.
Tutorial note: strictly speaking the additional charge does not apply if the expensive property is rented rather than owned –
therefore the above answer, whilst the most commonly given is not technically correct. One mark was awarded if the
additional benefit calculation was performed as shown above and an alternative one mark was awarded if the additional
benefit was not calculated for the correct technical reason.

(b) Peter, one of Linden Limited’s non-executive directors, having lived and worked in the UK for most of his adult

life, sold his home near London on 22 March 2006 and, together with his wife (a French citizen), moved to live

in a villa which she owns in the south of France. Peter is now demanding that the tax deducted from his director’s

fees, for the board meetings held on 18 April and 16 May 2006, be refunded, on the grounds that, as he is no

longer resident in the UK, he is no longer liable to UK income tax. All of the company’s board meetings are held

at its offices in Cambridge.

Despite Peter’s assurance that none of the other companies of which he is a director has disputed his change of

tax status, Damian is uncertain whether he should make the refunds requested. However, as Peter is a friend of

the company’s founder, Linden Limited’s managing director is urging him to do so, stating that if the tax does

have to be paid, then Linden Limited could always bear the cost.

Required:

Advise Damian whether Peter is correct in his assertion regarding his tax position and in the case that there

is a UK tax liability the implications of the managing director’s suggestion. You are not required to consider

national insurance (NIC) issues. (4 marks)

正确答案:
(b) Peter will have been resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. When such individuals leave the UK for a purpose other than
to take up full time employment abroad, they normally continue to still be so regarded unless their absence spans a complete
tax year. But, where someone intends to live permanently abroad or to do so for a period of at least three tax years, they may
be treated as non-resident and non-ordinarily resident from the day after the date of their departure, if they can provide
evidence to HMRC of that intention. Selling a residence in the UK and setting up home abroad will normally constitute such
evidence. However to retain non-resident status the intention must actually be fulfilled, and visits to the UK must not exceed
182 days in any tax year or average more than 90 days per year over a period of four tax years. Given that Peter would appear
to have several company directorships in the UK, it is possible that he might fail to satisfy the 90 day average ‘substantial
visits’ rule.
Even if Peter is classed as non-resident, any remuneration earned in the UK will still be liable to UK income tax, and subject
to PAYE, unless it is for duties incidental to an overseas employment, which is unlikely to be the case for fees paid to a nonexecutive
director for attending board meetings. Thus, income tax should still be deducted from the fees under PAYE. Where
PAYE should have been deducted from a director’s emoluments and it has not been, but the tax is nevertheless accounted
for by the company to HMRC, then to the extent that the tax is not reimbursed by the director, he will be treated as receiving
a benefit equivalent to the amount of tax.

(b) Comment (with relevant calculations) on the performance of the business of Quicklink Ltd and Celer

Transport during the year ended 31 May 2005 and, insofar as the information permits, its projected

performance for the year ending 31 May 2006. Your answer should specifically consider:

(i) Revenue generation per vehicle

(ii) Vehicle utilisation and delivery mix

(iii) Service quality. (14 marks)

正确答案:

difference will reduce in the year ending 31 May 2006 due to the projected growth in sales volumes of the Celer Transport
business. The average mail/parcels delivery of mail/parcels per vehicle of the Quicklink Ltd part of the business is budgeted
at 12,764 which is still 30·91% higher than that of the Celer Transport business.
As far as specialist activities are concerned, Quicklink Ltd is budgeted to generate average revenues per vehicle amounting to
£374,850 whilst Celer Transport is budgeted to earn an average of £122,727 from each of the vehicles engaged in delivery
of processed food. It is noticeable that all contracts with major food producers were renewed on 1 June 2005 and it would
appear that there were no increases in the annual value of the contracts with major food producers. This might have been
the result of a strategic decision by the management of the combined entity in order to secure the future of this part of the
business which had been built up previously by the management of Celer Transport.
Each vehicle owned by Quicklink Ltd and Celer Transport is in use for 340 days during each year, which based on a
365 day year would give an in use % of 93%. This appears acceptable given the need for routine maintenance and repairs
due to wear and tear.
During the year ended 31 May 2005 the number of on-time deliveries of mail and parcel and industrial machinery deliveries
were 99·5% and 100% respectively. This compares with ratios of 82% and 97% in respect of mail and parcel and processed
food deliveries made by Celer Transport. In this critical area it is worth noting that Quicklink Ltd achieved their higher on-time
delivery target of 99% in respect of each activity whereas Celer Transport were unable to do so. Moreover, it is worth noting
that Celer Transport missed their target time for delivery of food products on 975 occasions throughout the year 31 May 2005
and this might well cause a high level of customer dissatisfaction and even result in lost business.
It is interesting to note that whilst the businesses operate in the same industry they have a rather different delivery mix in
terms of same day/next day demands by clients. Same day deliveries only comprise 20% of the business of Quicklink Ltd
whereas they comprise 75% of the business of Celer Transport. This may explain why the delivery performance of Celer
Transport with regard to mail and parcel deliveries was not as good as that of Quicklink Ltd.
The fact that 120 items of mail and 25 parcels were lost by the Celer Transport business is most disturbing and could prove
damaging as the safe delivery of such items is the very substance of the business and would almost certainly have resulted
in a loss of customer goodwill. This is an issue which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The introduction of the call management system by Quicklink Ltd on 1 June 2004 is now proving its worth with 99% of calls
answered within the target time of 20 seconds. This compares favourably with the Celer Transport business in which only
90% of a much smaller volume of calls were answered within a longer target time of 30 seconds. Future performance in this
area will improve if the call management system is applied to the Celer Transport business. In particular, it is likely that the
number of abandoned calls will be reduced and enhance the ‘image’ of the Celer Transport business.


(ii) The answers to any questions that the potential investors may raise in connection with the maximum

possible investment, borrowing to finance the subscription and the implications of selling the shares.

(7 marks)

Note: you should assume that Vostok Ltd and its trade qualify for the purposes of the enterprise investment

scheme and you are not required to list the conditions that need to be satisfied by the company, its

shares or its business activities.

正确答案:
(ii) Answers to questions from potential investors
Maximum investment
– For the relief to be available, a shareholder (together with spouse and children) cannot own more than 30% of the
company. Accordingly, the maximum investment by a single subscriber will be £315,000 (15,000 x £21).
Borrowing to finance the purchase
– There would normally be tax relief for the interest paid on a loan taken out to acquire shares in a close company
such as Vostok Ltd. However, this relief is not available when the shares qualify for relief under the enterprise
investment scheme.
Implications of a subscriber selling the shares in Vostok Ltd
– The income tax relief will be withdrawn if the shares in Vostok Ltd are sold within three years of subscription.
– Any profit arising on the sale of the shares in Vostok Ltd on which income tax relief has been given will be exempt
from capital gains tax provided the shares have been held for three years.
– Any capital loss arising on the sale of the shares will be allowable regardless of how long the shares have been
held. However, the loss will be reduced by the amount of income tax relief obtained in respect of the investment.
The loss may be used to reduce the investor’s taxable income, and hence his income tax liability, for the tax year
of loss and/or the preceding tax year.
– Any gain deferred at the time of subscription will become chargeable in the year in which the shares in Vostok Ltd
are sold.

声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。