Rubric Assessment - Shark College

11/05/2022, 09:39 Rubric Assessment – (BAO6005) Taxation Law of Australia – ZV – Victoria University
https://vucollaborate.vu.edu.au/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=1371873&evalObjectId=222722&evalObjectType=1&… 1/6
Assessment 3: Tax strategies and recommendations
Course: (BAO6005) Taxation Law of Australia – ZV

Criteria

High
Distinction
(HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (C)

Pass (P)

Fail (N)

Criterion
Score

AssignmentTutorOnline

C1.
Effective
communicat
ion and use
of academic
literacies

10 points
(8-10 points)
Outstanding
level of
application
of
knowledge
and skills.
Highly
accurate and
appropriate
language
use.
Expertly
written and
adheres to
the
academic
genre.
No errors in
grammar or
spelling are
evident.
Information,
arguments
and
evidence
are expertly
presented;

/ 10

7.5 points
(7-7.9
points)
Highly
effective
level of
application
of
knowledge
and skills.
Accurate
and
appropriate
language
use.
Very well
written and
adheres to
the
academic
genre.
No errors in
grammar or
spelling are
evident.
Information,
arguments
and
evidence are

6.5 points
(6-6.9
points)
Effective
level of
application
of
knowledge
and skills.
Effective
language
use.
Well written
and adheres
to the
academic
genre.
No errors in
grammar or
spelling are
evident.
Information,
arguments
and
evidence are
well
presented,
mostly clear
flow of ideas

5.5 points
(5-5.9
points)
Sound level
of
application
of
knowledge
and skills.
Satisfactory
language
use.
Written
according to
academic
genre (e.g.
with
introduction,
conclusion
or summary)
and has
accurate
spelling,
grammar,
sentence
and
paragraph
construction
.

2.5 points
(0-4.9
points)
Poor level of
application
of
knowledge
and skills.
Poor
language
use.
Poorly
written with
errors in
spelling,
grammar.
Difficult to
understand
for audience,
no
logical/clear
structure,
poor flow of
ideas,
argument
lacks
supporting
evidence.

Criteria

High
Distinction
(HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (C)

Pass (P)

Fail (N)

Criterion
Score

C2. Identificatio n of the requirement for a scheme to exist
/ 5 justified. 1.2 points (0–2.4 points) Poor identificatio n of the requirement for a scheme to exist.	persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrati ng a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Justifies any conclusions reached with sophisticate d a rguments. presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Justifies any conclusions reached with well developed arguments. Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments not merely assertion. Errors in grammar or spelling are frequent but do not detract from meaning. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion. 5 points (4–5 points) Outstanding identificatio n of the requirement for a scheme to exist. 3.7 points (3.5–3.9 points) Highly effective identificatio n of the requirement for a scheme to exist. 3.2 points (3–3.4 points) Effective identificatio n of the requirement for a scheme to exist. 2.7 points (2.5–2.9 points) Sound identificatio n of the requirement for a scheme to exist.
the presentation is logical,	very well presented; the	and arguments.	Makes assertions that are not

Criteria

High
Distinction
(HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (C)

Pass (P)

Fail (N)

Criterion
Score

C3. Identificatio n of the requirement for a tax benefit to exist 5 points (4–5 points) Outstanding identificatio n of the requirement for a tax benefit to exist.
/ 5	3.7 points (3.5–3.9 points) Highly effective identificatio n of the requirement for a tax benefit to exist.	3.2 points (3–3.4 points) Effective identificatio n of the requirement for a tax benefit to exist.	2.7 points (2.5–2.9 points) Sound identificatio n of the requirement for a tax benefit to exist.	1.2 points (0–2.4 points) Poor identificatio n of the requirement for a tax benefit to exist.
C4. Discussion as to whether the circumstanc es outlined met the definition of scheme and tax benefit	/ 15	15 points (12–15 points) Outstanding discussion as to whether the circumstanc es outlined met the definition of scheme and tax benefit.	11.2 points (10.5–11.9 points) Highly effective discussion as to whether the circumstanc es outlined met the definition of scheme and tax benefit.	9.7 points (9–10.4 points) Effective discussion as to whether the circumstanc es outlined met the definition of scheme and tax benefit.	8.2 points (7.5–8.9 points) Sound discussion as to whether the circumstanc es outlined met the definition of scheme and tax benefit.	3.7 points (0–7.4 points) Poor discussion as to whether the circumstanc es outlined met the definition of scheme and tax benefit.

Criteria

High
Distinction
(HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (C)

Pass (P)

Fail (N)

Criterion
Score

C5. Reasoning for trust distribution recommend ations 15 points (12–15 points) Outstanding reasoning for trust distribution recommenda tions.
/ 15	11.2 points (10.5–11.9 points) Highly effective reasoning for trust distribution recommenda tions.	9.7 points (9–10.4 points) Effective reasoning for trust distribution recommenda tions.	8.2 points (7.5–8.9 points) Sound reasoning for trust distribution recommenda tions.	3.7 points (0–7.4 points) Poor reasoning for trust distribution recommenda tions.
C6. Estimation of taxation liabilities	/ 5	5 points (4–5 points) Outstanding estimation of taxation liabilities.	3.7 points (3.5–3.9 points) Highly effective estimation of taxation liabilities.	3.2 points (3–3.4 points) Effective estimation of taxation liabilities.	2.7 points (2.5–2.9 points) Sound estimation of taxation liabilities.	1.2 points (0–2.4 points) Poor estimation of taxation liabilities.
C7. Explanation of the difference between two sale structures	/ 15	15 points (12–15 points) Outstanding explanation of the difference between two sale structures.	11.2 points (10.5–11.9 points) Highly effective explanation of the difference between two sale structures.	9.7 points (9–10.4 points) Effective explanation of the difference between two sale structures.	8.2 points (7.5–8.9 points) Sound explanation of the difference between two sale structures.	3.7 points (0–7.4 points) Poor explanation of the difference between two sale structures.

Criteria

High
Distinction
(HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (C)

Pass (P)

Fail (N)

Criterion
Score

C8. Description of potential tax strategies for sale of business 15 points (12–15 points) Outstanding description of potential tax strategies for sale of business.
/ 15	11.2 points (10.5–11.9 points) Highly effective description of potential tax strategies for sale of business.	9.7 points (9–10.4 points) Effective description of potential tax strategies for sale of business.	8.2 points (7.5–8.9 points) Sound description of potential tax strategies for sale of business.	3.7 points (0–7.4 points) Poor description of potential tax strategies for sale of business.
C9. Identificatio n of client preferences that may impact tax strategies used for sale of business	/ 5	5 points (4–5 points) Outstanding identificatio n of client preferences that may impact tax strategies used for sale of business.	3.7 points (3.5–3.9 points) Highly effective identificatio n of client preferences that may impact tax strategies used for sale of business.	3.2 points (3–3.4 points) Effective identificatio n of client preferences that may impact tax strategies used for sale of business.	2.7 points (2.5–2.9 points) Sound identificatio n of client preferences that may impact tax strategies used for sale of business.	1.2 points (0–2.4 points) Poor identificatio n of client preferences that may impact tax strategies used for sale of business.

Criteria

High
Distinction
(HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (C)

Pass (P)

Fail (N)

Criterion
Score

C10. Correct use of the Harvard referencing style, and inclusion of a reference list 10 points (8-10 points) Outstanding, sophisticate d and correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with no errors. Number of relevant academic references significantly exceeds requirement s.
/ 10	7.5 points (7-7.9 points) Highly effective, relevant and correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with no errors. Number of relevant academic references exceeds requirement s.	6.5 points (6-6.9 points) Effective and mostly correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with few (<10%) errors. Number of relevant academic references meets requirement s.	5.5 points (5-5.9 points) Sound and mostly correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with errors. Number of relevant academic references meets requirement s.	2.5 points (0-4.9 points) Poor and incorrect use of referencing and does not include a reference list. Number of relevant academic references do not meet requirement s.

High Distinction (HD)
80 points minimum
Distinction (D)
70 points minimum
Credit (C)
60 points minimum
Pass (P)
50 points minimum
Fail (N)
0 points minimum

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
(USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply Cancel reply