HI6028 T3 2019 Taxation Theory, Practice & Law
HI6028 Taxation Theory, Practice & Law T3 2019
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines | |
Trimester | T3 2019 |
Unit Code | HI6028 |
Unit Title | Taxation Theory, Practice & Law |
Assessment Type | Assignment |
Assessment Title | Individual Assignment |
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping) | Students are required to follow the instructions by your lecturer to confirm any relevant information. You also need to follow any relevant announcement on Blackboard to confirm the due date and time of the assignment. The individual assignment will assess students on the following learning outcomes: Demonstrate an understanding of the Australian income tax system, the concept of deductions, CGT, general anti-avoidance provisions and income tax administration. (ULO 1).Identify and critically analyse taxation issues. (ULO 2).Interpret the relevant taxation legislations and case law. (ULO 3).Apply taxation principles to real life problems. (ULO 4). |
Weight | This assignment task accounts for 25 % of total marks in this unit. |
Total Marks | This assignment task accounts for 25 marks of total marks in this unit. |
Word limit | Max 2000 words (acceptable to be 10% above or below this word limit). |
Due Date | Refer to the Unit Outline, as Normal & Block Modes have different due dates. |
Submission Guidelines | All work must be submitted to the 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. |
Individual Assignment Specifications HI6028
Purpose:
This assignment aims at assessing students on the Learning Outcome (LO) from 1 to 4 as mentioned above.

Instructions: Please read carefully to avoid mistakes.
- Answer all questions.
- This assignment along with a completed Assignment Cover Page is to be submitted on Blackboard by the due date in soft-copy only.
- The self-check links are no longer available as a separate link in each unit’s assessment. Students are now limited to attempt any given assignment submission a maximum of three times. After every attempt you will receive a SafeAssign originality report with Blackboard Learning Management System. This will provide detailed information about the matches found between your submitted works and existing sources.
- The assignment is to be submitted in accordance with assessment policy stated in the Unit Outline and Student Handbook.
- It is the responsibility of the student submitting the work to ensure that the work is in fact his/her own work. Incorporating another’s work or ideas into one’s own work without appropriate acknowledgement is an academic offence.
- 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. You also must refer to relevant legislation and/or case law in your answer. 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.
- Note: Assessment task is set around the work that you have done in class. You are not expected to go outside the content of the unit but you are expected to explore it.
Assignment Structure should be as the follows:
Question 1: ASSESSABLE INCOME | Weighting |
Identification of material facts (issues) regarding Emmi’s assessable income scenario, and the consequences discussed in the assignment question. | 1 % |
Identification and analysis of legal issues / legal question and relevant taxation law in regards to Emmi’s income (e.g. ITAA 1936 and ITAA 1997). | 2 % |
Thorough yet succinct application of tax law (e.g. ITAA 1936 and ITAA 1997) to material facts in Emmi’s case. | 2 % |
Detailed and accurate assessable income conclusion are reached from the discussion. | 2 % |
Correct information and taxation law have been used and properly cited. A detailed analysis has been performed. | 2 % |
Ability to show excellent understanding of the cases and/or section of legislation, its context and application of taxation law. | 1 % |
QUESTION 1 TOTAL MARKS: | 10 % |
QUESTION 2: CAPITAL GAINS TAX (CGT) | Weighting |
Identification of material facts regarding the capital gains tax (CGT) consequences of Liu’s transactions discussed in the assignment question. | 1 % |
Identification and analysis of legal issues / legal question and relevant taxation law. | 3 % |
Thorough yet succinct application of ITAA 1997 to material facts. | 5 % |
Detailed and accurate conclusions are reached from the scenario discussion. | 2 % |
Correct information and taxation law have been used and properly cited. A detailed analysis has been performed. | 2 % |
Students are able to demonstrate understanding of the cases and/or section of legislation, its context and application of taxation law. | 2 % |
QUESTION 2 TOTAL MARKS: | 15 % |
Assignments’ Instructions and Requirements HI6028
QUESTION 1- (10 MARKS)
Emmi studies accounting at Holmes Institute and works part-time in Crown Melbourne restaurant. During the year Emmi has receipts as follows:
- Tips
from customers of $335 cash; (1.5 marks)
- Income of $25,000 from working in the Crown Melbourne restaurants; (1.5 marks)
- An expensive perfume worth $250, from a regular customer gifted to Emmi at Christmas time. Emmi does not use the perfume and gave the perfume to her mother; (1.5 marks)
- A monthly entertainment event paid by the restaurant owner. The owner spends around $380 on the meals that Emmi consumed. Emmi enjoys these events and sees them as a reward for her hard work; (1.5 marks)
- Emmi received $15,000 as Christmas gift from her father. (1.5 marks)
With reference to relevant legislation and case law discuss Emmi’s
assessable income for the year.
Calculate Emmi’s Total Assessable income. (2.5 marks)
QUESTION 2 – (15 MARKS)
Liu is a 65 years old Australian resident but born in China, Liu is retiring from her business and decides to sell all of her Australian assets and moving home to China.
The assets that she is selling include:
- A house Liu purchased in 1981 for $55,000 and now worth $630,000. This house was Liu’s main residence for the entire period of ownership (03 marks).
- Liu’s car which cost $37,000 in 2011 and is now worth around $8,000 (03 marks).
- Liu’s has a small business enterprise, Monte Liu Photography Studio. She started the photography business herself and has found a buyer to take over the business for $125,000. The sale price includes $53,000 for all of the photography equipment, which cost $63,000, and $50,000 for goodwill (03 marks).
- Liu’s furniture for $4,800. No single furniture item being sold cost more than $2,000 (03 marks).
- Liu paintings for $28,000. All of her paintings were purchased in second hand shops or markets and no single painting cost more than $500. The one exception was a painting she purchased direct from an artist for
$1,000. This painting being sold for $8,000 (03 marks).
Advise the capital gains tax (CGT) consequences of the above sales. Your answer should include appropriate legislative references.
Assignment Structure should be as the following (students’ responses involves calculations, and students must refer to the relevant legislation and/or cases whenever required according to the questions).
Marking criteria
Marking criteria | Weighting |
Question 1 | |
Identification of material facts regarding the given FBT scenarios, and the consequences discussed in the assignment question. | 1 mark |
Identification of material facts (issues) regarding Emmi’s assessable income scenario, and the consequences discussed in the assignment question. | 2 marks |
Identification and analysis of legal issues / legal question and relevant taxation law in regards to Emmi’s income (e.g. ITAA 1936 and ITAA 1997). | 2 marks |
Thorough yet succinct application of tax law (e.g. ITAA 1936 and ITAA 1997) to material facts in Emmi’s case. | 2 marks |
Detailed and accurate assessable income conclusion are reached from the discussion. | 2 marks |
Correct information and taxation law have been used and properly cited. A detailed analysis has been performed. | 1 mark |
Ability to show excellent understanding of the cases and/or section of legislation, its context and application of taxation law. | 10 MARKS |
Question 2 | |
Identification of material facts regarding the income and deductions consequences of David’s transactions discussed in the assignment question. | 1 mark |
Identification of material facts regarding the capital gains tax (CGT) consequences of Liu’s transactions discussed in the assignment question. | 3 marks |
Identification and analysis of legal issues / legal question and relevant taxation law. | 5 marks |
Thorough yet succinct application of ITAA 1997 to material facts. | 2 marks |
Detailed and accurate conclusions are reached from the scenario discussion. | 2 marks |
Correct information and taxation law have been used and properly cited. A detailed analysis has been performed. | 2 marks |
Students are able to demonstrate understanding of the cases and/or section of legislation, its context and application of taxation law. | 15 MARKS |
Marking Rubric
Excellent | Very Good | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |
Demonstrated ability | Comprehensive | Very good | Majority of | Some relevant | Failure to identify |
to identify issues | identification of | identificatio | relevant issues | issues | and discuss relevant |
relating to taxation | key issues. | n and | identities and | overlooked or | issues. No links |
law : Knowledge and | Frequent links | discussion | discussed. | misunderstood. | made drawn across |
understanding of | drawn across | of issues. | Some links | Few links made | topics or to |
income tax and CGT. | topics or to | Several | drawn across | drawn across | extraneous |
extraneous | links drawn | topics or to | topics or to | materials. | |
materials. Student | across topics | extraneous | extraneous | ||
property generates | or to | materials. | materials. | ||
questions and | extraneous | ||||
problems around a | materials. | ||||
case. | |||||
Ability to synthesise | Thorough analysis | Very good | Some analysis | Mainly | Insufficient analysis |
material in order to | and synthesis of | analysis, | of issues: | descriptive with | argument is lacking |
raise issues or | issues. | argument | argument may | little analysis of | or unsound, failure |
construct a | Persuasively | well- | be under- | issues basic | to use relevant |
persuasive argument. | argued | developed | developed or | argument is | materials, or use of |
Ability to engage in a | throughout, | and | unpersuasive. | unclear or use | materials may |
reflective discourse: | contrary | supported, | Limited critical | undeveloped or | indicate confusion |
Synthesis analysis | arguments | some critical | evaluation and | not well | or |
and argument. | anticipated. | evaluation | response to | supported. | misunderstanding. |
Excellent critical | of other | other material. | Limited | No response to other | |
evaluation of other | material and | Conclusion is | reference to | material. No | |
metrical and | appropriate | reached but do | other material. | conclusion is given. | |
appropriate | response. | not supports | The response | ||
response. Detailed | Conclusion | the analysis. | shows some | ||
conclusion is | is reached | understanding of | |||
reached from the | from the | the case, its | |||
discussion. | discussion. | context and | |||
application of | |||||
tax law. | |||||
Writing presentation | Clear and logical | Very good | Generally | Some defects in | Structure and |
and referencing | organisation; | structure | coherent | structure and | organisation |
precise and | and | structure a with | organisation; | incoherent or | |
concise writing. | organisation | occasional | writing may be | lacking; poorly | |
Minimal errors in | . Generally | deficiencies; | difficult to | written, difficult to | |
expression, | well- | reasonably | follow in parts. | follow. Frequent or | |
grammar, spelling | written. | well written. | Flaws in | repeated flaws in | |
or punctuation. | Occasional | Some flaws in | expression, | expression, |
Excellent and | minor flaws | expression, | grammar, | grammar, spelling | |
complete | in | grammar, | spelling or | or punctuation; | |
referencing. | expression, | spelling or | punctuation; a | inadequate citation | |
Grammar and | grammar, | punctuation. | number of | of sources. Errors in | |
spelling are | spelling or | missing, | referencing. | ||
correct. | punctuation. | incomplete or | |||
Correct and | incorrect | ||||
complete | footnote | ||||
referencing. | citations. | ||||
Referencing | |||||
omissions. |