fbpx

Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

HI6025Accounting Theory and Current Issues

0 Comments

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
TrimesterT3 2021
Unit CodeHI6025
Unit TitleAccounting Theory and Current Issues
Assessment TypeGroup Assignment
Assessment TitleConceptual and critical evaluation of theories
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)This is a group assignment. Students are required to conduct a research and analysis of a theoretical financial reporting issue and present their findings in a written report. Students will have to do research on relevant literature and demonstrate understanding and critical evaluation of key disclosure issues relating to application of specific accounting standards. Additionally, they will demonstrate understanding and critical evaluation of the Australian financial reporting environment and its current regulatory framework and recommend future directions to the Australian financial reporting regulators. (ULO 1, 2, 4, 7).
Weight40 % of the total assessments
Total Marks40
Word limit3,000 words ± 500 words
Due DateGroup Formation: Please form the group by self-enrolling in Blackboard. There should be maximum of 4 members in a group. Email BBHelpdesk@holmes.edu.au for any issues with self-enrolling into groups.   Assignment submission: Final Submission of Group Assignment: Week 10, Thursday 3rd of Feb 2022 at 11:59 pm.   Late submission incurs penalties of five (5) % of the assessment per calendar day unless an extension and/or special consideration has been granted by Student Services of your campus prior to the assessment deadline.
Submission GuidelinesAll work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers. Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style. Adapted Harvard Referencing Holmes has now implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing:   1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access to the source’s content for lecturers and markers.
 The Reference list should be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled: References.It should include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A-Z alphabetically by author surname. In addition, it MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source. For example; P Hawking, B McCarthy, A Stein (2004), Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, Fall, http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf All assignments will require additional in-text reference details, which will consist of the surname of the author/authors or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of content, the paragraph where the content can be found. For example; “The company decided to implement an enterprise-wide data warehouse business intelligence strategies (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4)).”   cid:image001.png@01D70919.7D6E4510 Non – Adherence to Referencing Guidelines Where students do not follow the above guidelines: Students who submit assignments that do not comply with the guidelines may be required to resubmit their assignments or incur penalties for inadequate referencing.Late penalties will apply per day after a student or group has been notified of resubmission requirements. Students whose citations are identified as fictitious will be reported for academic misconduct.

Part A

Assignment Specifications

In an article published in The Australian on 4 May 2021, it was noted that the company named as the ‘ABC Group’ reported a big loss equal to $595 million and negative net assets of $75 million. The company seems insolvent and unable to pay all of its liabilities if they fall due. The auditors did not qualify the financial statements, nor challenge the directors on their assertion that the company was a going concern.

Requirement:

1) Discuss the implications for the company’s financial statements preparation and presentation if the company is not considered to be a going concern? Use the conceptual framework concept and general-purpose financial statements requirement given the evidence provided above?

“Maximum 1000 words.”

Part B

According to the Australian Accounting Standards (AASB 138 Intangible Assets), companies are required to not capitalised research expenditure instead treating them as expenses consequently present them in the income statement.

Requirement:

  1. Building on the three main components of the Positive Accounting Theory, provide your prediction and discuss which companies are likely to have a preference of capitalising research expenditure rather than expenses?
  2. Discuss the potential investigation or studies for researchers for testing your predictions in the above question.

“Maximum 2000 words.”

Assignment Structure:

Marking Rubric

 ExcellentVery GoodGoodSatisfactoryUnsatisfactory
ContentDemonstrate superior knowledge of the theory and key concepts. Excellent interpretation with extensive elaboration of relevant sub- topics, appropriately weighted and within the prescribed word count. Demonstrated in-depth understanding and application of key concepts and terminology relating to the accounting fundamentals.A detailed outline of knowledge including the supporting theoretical argument. Providing a thorough understanding of the concepts within the topic. Professional terminology effectively incorporated.Shows adequate knowledge of the concepts, key points and displays a sound understanding of theories and results. Relevant professional terminology effectively incorporated.Shows some basicInadequate or little
Part Aunderstanding of the topic.understanding of the theory.
Discuss theHas managed to cover some ofLacks the necessary detail and
implications for thethe main points of the case.expression and displays an
company’s financialDisplays sufficientunderdeveloped
statementsunderstanding of concepts.understanding of the
preparation andProfessional terminologyconcepts. Absence of key
presentation, if theadequately incorporated.professional terminology.
company is not  
considered to be a  
going concern  
15%  
Content Part B (1) Building on the threeDemonstrate superior knowledge of the theory and key concepts. Excellent interpretation with extensive elaboration of relevant sub- topics, appropriately weighted and within the prescribed word count. Demonstrated in-depth understanding and application of key concepts and terminology relating to the accounting fundamentals.A detailed outline of knowledge including the supporting theoretical argument. ProvidingShows adequate knowledge of the concepts, key points andShows some basic understanding of the topic. Has managed to cover some ofInadequate or little understanding of the theory. Lacks the necessary detail and
main component ofa thorough understanding ofdisplays a soundthe main points of the case.expression and displays an
the Positivethe concepts within the topic.understanding of theoriesDisplays sufficientunderdeveloped
Accounting Theory,Professional terminologyand results.understanding of concepts.understanding of the
provide youreffectively incorporated.Relevant professionalProfessional terminologyconcepts. Absence of key
prediction and terminology effectivelyadequately incorporated.professional terminology.
discuss which incorporated.  
companies are likely    
to have preference of    
capitalising research    
expenditure rather    
than expenses    
10%    
Content Part B (2) Discuss the potential investigation or studies for researchers for testing your predictions in the above question 5%Superior Interpretation of the questions and underlying key points provided. Outstanding and insightful theoretical discussion with clear empirical evidence provided.Interpretation of the questions and underlying key points were clearly identified. Demonstrated a strong theoretical discussion and empirical evidences.Interpretation of questions and underlying key points were partially identified. An effective theoretical response with some empirical evidence provided.Interpretation of the questions and underlying key points identified. Adequate coherence supported with a basic theoretical approach. Appropriate empirical evidence provided.Inadequate interpretation of the underlying key points. Inadequate interpretation demonstrating inconsistent and irrelevant thoughts. Inappropriate coherence of the key points.
  Presentation and Structure   10%Superior key points were clearly identified and supported with outstanding references. Excellent grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax Referencing requirements exceeds expectations and advanced research techniques demonstrated.Effective key points were identified and supported with excellent references Excellent grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax. Referencing requirements meet expectations with excellent resources used Advanced research techniques demonstrated.Adequate key points were identified and supported with sound references Appropriate grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax. Referencing requirements meet expectations and appropriate resources used. Appropriate research demonstrated, and sound resources used.Key points were identified and supported with sufficient references. a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts in the report. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax needs some improvement. Referencing requirements are met and mostly appropriate resources used.Key points were poorly identified and not supported with references. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, professional writing, and syntax needs significant improvement. Provides an inadequate critical analysis. Failure to meet referencing requirements and inappropriate resources used.

6 of 6

Academic Integrity

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Sills link on Blackboard.

Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches

PlagiarismReproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
CollusionWorking with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.
CopyingReproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
ImpersonationFalsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheatingContracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsificationManipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.

Source: INQAAHE, 2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *