ACCT19082: Assessment Item 1

There has recently been some uproar in the Australian press about the number of large corporations who pay little or no corporate tax to the Australian Government. Qantas is one such company. There are many legitimate reasons why a company has not paid tax, even if they are reporting a profit. Follow this link to read Neil Chenoweth explain why Qantas did not pay tax in 2017. Because the Australian Financial Review operates behind a paywall, you will need to access this article via full-text in the University library databases. Click on the Factive link to find the full text version.

Here is Qantas set to pay tax after strong result.

Finally, here is a criticism of the ABC for not reporting on corporate tax correctly.

What you must do

1. Research and report on the reasons why Qantas paid no tax in the previous financial year. What are their predictions on when they will commence paying company tax again?
2. Choose any two of the following theories:
   1. The IASB Conceptual Framework (a normative theory)
   2. Positive Accounting Theory (PAT)
   3. Legitimacy Theory
   4. Stakeholder Theory (the managerial branch of Stakeholder Theory).
3. For each of your two chosen theories, perform a literature review that covers the history of the theory, the benefits of that theory and the problems of using that theory.
4. Identify which of your two theories is the most suitable for explaining why Qantas paid no tax and when they might pay tax in the future.
5. Apply that theory to further explain your report on Qantas in the first step of this assignment.

What to submit

You must submit your assessment in the form of a single report, in the following format:

Executive Summary

Use the executive summary to summarise your topic and the key points of what you found in the literature about your topic. This should be no more than two paragraphs. Professional writers usually write part after they have finished the report.

Introduction

This is not the same as a synopsis. An introduction should be a roadmap to your entire report: what the topic was, where you searched, what you found, what the key points are.

An introduction can take up to half a page. Write this after the literature review and conclusion sections, but before the synopsis.

Report (3,000 words in total)

1. Qantas and tax discussion (brief, suggest 500 words)
2. Identify the two chosen theories and why (brief, suggest 500 words)
3. Literature reviews for each theory (detailed, suggest 500 words for each theory)
4. Application of the chosen theory (includes your reason for choosing that theory) (detailed: suggest 1,000 words).

Conclusion

This wraps up (summarises) the key points of the report. Use this section to conclusively and clearly respond to the requirements of the topic.

Reference List

Place your references here. I expect quite a few. Each reference listed here must also have a citation within the text of your literature review. The reverse is also true: every citation of a source within your literature review must point to a reference here in your reference list.

The assessment criteria

As you can probably guess, there is no single "correct" answer for this assignment, although there can be many "incorrect" answers. You will be assessed on:

• the quality of your scholarship (research, processing information, and finally the ability to present what your found out in a useful way) (80%)
• the quality of your English expression (10%)
• the quality (readability) of your presentation (10%).

You must use APA referencing style for this assignment and you must be consistent: you must reference all sources of your information. A failure to reference properly will attract penalties of up to 5 marks.

Plagiarism or academic misconduct (such as using someone else to write your assignment) will attract worse penalties.

Rubric

Key Criteria	Exceeds expactations (HD) 85–100%	Exceeds expectations (D) 75–84%	Meets expectations (C) 65–74%	Meets minimum expectations (P) 50–64%	Below expectations (F) < 50%
Organisation/structure(6 marks)	The ideas are arranged in an extremely logical, structured and coherent manner. The introduction and conclusion clearly set out what is covered in the report.	The ideas are arranged in a fairly logical, structured and coherent manner. The introduction and conclusion indicate what is covered in the report but not in a clear and succinct manner.	The ideas are arranged in a logical, some-what structured and coherent manner. The introduction and conclusion give a basic overview of what is in the report.	The report follows a basic structure, but the reader has to work hard to understand it.	There is little, if any, coherent structure to the document.
Content knowledge & literature review (28 marks)	Demonstrates a balanced and very high level of detailed knowledge of core concepts by providing a very high level of analysis. Utilises current, appropriate and credible sources.	Demonstrates a balanced and high level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a high level of analysis. Utilises mostly current, appropriate and credible sources.	Demonstrates a good level of knowledge of some of the core concepts by providing some level of analysis. Utilises some current, appropriate and credible sources.	Demonstrates limited knowledge of core concepts by providing a limited level of analysis. Utilises few current, appropriate and credible sources.	Demonstrates little, if any, knowledge of the core concepts with extremely limited, if any, analysis. Utilises little, if any, current, appropriate and credible sources.
Quality of writing & presentation (6 marks)	Quality of writing at a very high standard. Paragraphs are coherently connected to each other. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation.	Quality of writing is of a high standard. Paragraphs are mostly well structured. Few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes.	Quality of writing is of a good standard. Few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes.	Some problems with sentence structure and presentation Frequent grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes. Use of inappropriate language.	Quality of writing is at a very poor standard so barely understandable. Many spelling mistakes. Little or no evidence of proof reading.