@baodientuvov: Triệt phá đường dây hóa đơn thuế VAT cực lớn #baodientuvov #tiktoknews #tiktokviral #tintuc #tinphapluat

BÁO ĐT TIẾNG NÓI VIỆT NAM

Open In TikTok:

Region: VN

Tuesday 12 May 2026 01:46:31 GMT

275592

3000

93

1246

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (1.76MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (2.01MB) Watermark .mp4 (0MB) Music .mp3

Comments

Vũ Minh Phát :

Các công ty mua hoá đơn nhân công của công ty này cũng mệt luôn

2026-05-13 07:22:44

39

M1911 :

Họ vẫn đóng thuế vat đầy đủ mà

2026-05-13 08:21:13

3

Hương Bi :

Cty vẫn đóng thuế mà vớ phải đầu vào lỗi cái cty lại khổ. Rủi ro nhiều quá

2026-05-13 23:53:00

3

Nguyễn Huy Dũng :

Hơn 1000 tỉ hoa Hồng 3% -5% thì ăn đủ

2026-05-13 11:56:08

2

Mê cá :

Có bài báo mới nhất từ bộ công an ngày 13/5 rồi đấy bạn, vào cập nhật thông tin và đính chính bài đăng đi không họ lại kiện cho tội đưa thông tin sai sự thật

2026-05-14 04:03:36

0

Tâm Hoà :

bảo sao dạo này trong nhóm kế toán đăng tuyển liên tọi

2026-05-13 17:14:19

1

Anh tuấn :

Còn nhiều lắm

2026-06-15 05:09:01

0

Binh An :

Thế này bảo sao rủi ro thế này doanh nghiệp không tuyển được kế toán

2026-05-13 10:38:54

5

Nguyễn Khương :

sao bảo giầu nhanh thế

2026-05-13 15:29:50

0

Sandy Phạm :

654 DN??? Kinh khủng thâth

2026-05-15 13:58:59

0

🪬tâm thức 🕉️ chữa lành🔥 :

Tham có tham nổi đâu

2026-05-14 16:34:41

0

Dương Hoàng Mai AN :

thu được thì lại phải chi trả cho công ty khác Samsung ... hơn một nghìn tỷ .... 🤭

2026-05-13 08:14:07

2

ngamdoi :

ngành thuế

2026-05-13 06:40:20

0

Anh Thái Lái Xe 🚍🚍💪💪💪 :

Hay lắm😆

2026-05-14 02:54:43

0

Điện Nước Kim Khí Thắng Quỳnh :

tốn kế toán nhỉ

2026-05-24 01:12:49

0

Mạnh Nhôm :

Công an giờ làm thuế luôn cần gì thuế nữa xuất gia là đóng thuế rồi

2026-05-12 09:34:48

11

cô cô Quỳnh Như. Nấm lùn :

Hơn một nghìn tỉ

2026-05-13 06:24:43

2

Thích nghe nhạc 🎧 :

Kế toán cty này có bị đi ko ah

2026-05-13 07:30:44

0

Binh An :

Kế toán 654 doanh nghiệp lại chuẩn bị hồ sơ giải trình

2026-05-13 10:32:26

0

Anh Phạm :

Chỗ tao đi tù về vẫn giàu

2026-05-13 11:49:42

0

T_Black :

Ngay chỗ tao vừa rồi lượm 1 đống 🤣🤣🤣 mỗi ngày noa rửa vài chục tỷ kiếm 10% hoá đơn

2026-05-15 04:25:26

1

Thành Phát✅ :

Về châu khê thiếu gì

2026-05-13 05:30:54

1

tuanvantai :

vô đn cho thuê LĐ quá

2026-05-15 03:55:44

0

радиоэлектронная :

Mấy bố tập đoàn khoáng sản ở Hải phòng , kinh môn , thủy nguyên , hoành Bồ quảng ninh , thanh hóa , ninh bình ….( đá vôi , than , vôi xuất khẩu …. Cứ sờ vào thì biết ) bố nào cũng vài chục nghìn tỷ …. Ở đâu ra …?????

2026-05-27 17:15:10

0

tuh._hwgz :

Cty ưuen que

2026-05-14 11:38:26

0

To see more videos from user @baodientuvov, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

اللّهُمِّ انْزُقْنَا نَظْرَةً مِنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللهِ الحَسَيْن ، #الشيخ_احمد_الوائلي

اللّهُمِّ انْزُقْنَا نَظْرَةً مِنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللهِ الحَسَيْن ، #الشيخ_احمد_الوائلي

deixa sua opinião nos comentários #irmaosdasiclipfy #eduardodasi #fernandodasi #empresa #empresario

deixa sua opinião nos comentários #irmaosdasiclipfy #eduardodasi #fernandodasi #empresa #empresario

$The GOAT || Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a^{b^{c^{\cdot^{\cdot^{\cdot}}}}}}, even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical busy beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387. Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is \bm{g_{64}} where \bm{g_n} { 3 \bm{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow} 3 if n 1 and 3 \bm{\uparrow^{g_{n-1}}} 3 if n \bm{\geq} 2. \bm{{\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}}} Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid.#bouhlel #TCD #actor #rampage #treanding$
The GOAT || Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a^{b^{c^{\cdot^{\cdot^{\cdot}}}}}}, even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical busy beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387. Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is \bm{g_{64}} where \bm{g_n} { 3 \bm{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow} 3 if n 1 and 3 \bm{\uparrow^{g_{n-1}}} 3 if n \bm{\geq} 2. \bm{{\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}}} Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid.#bouhlel #TCD #actor #rampage #treanding

get wormed

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy