Below Expectations 1 Presentation and lack of structure detracts from the professionalism of the report. Very little concern regarding provision of advice suitable for the needs of a client. Compliance with page limits and formatting instructions have largely been ignored. Writing style often lacks clarity of expression, which impacts on the readability of the work, and therefore not suited to the set task. There are numerous grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors. Referencing contains more frequent errors. Not attempted 0 Not attempted Not attempted No attempt at referencing.

Meets Expectations 2 Written advice is adequately structured and logically sequenced, including a comprehensive diagram of the relationships, though it occasionally lacks a degree of professionalism with more frequent formatting errors, (such as minor formatting errors and/or inappropriate use of headings, lack of tables). May have some non- compliance with page limit and/or formatting instructions. Writing style sometimes lacks the clarity of expression but meaning is still apparent. Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation contain more frequent errors. In-text referencing is mostly complete and accurate with only minor errors evident.

Task Structure (3 marks) Clarity of expression (3 marks) Research & Referencing (3 marks) Above Expectations 3 Written advice is well structured and logically sequenced. Presented in a professional manner that communicates the intended advice to the client including the appropriate use of table/s and a comprehensive diagram of relationships. Compliance with page limit and formatting instructions. Minor formatting errors. Fluent writing style with expression appropriate to set task. Grammar, spelling and punctuation are accurate with only very few minor errors evident. In-text referencing is complete and accurate.

Below Expectations 2 Few of the possible investor- investee relationships are identified including identifying criteria, appropriate accounting treatment, and identification of Paris Group. Major errors evident. Limited evidence of research of the relevant accounting standards and application of the case details, demonstrated by the correct application of few of the relevant sections of the accounting standards. Errors evident in calculations. Analysis demonstrated but with major errors resulting in incorrect conclusions or inconsistent with analysis. Well Below Expectations 1 Fails to identify the possible investor-investee relationships including identifying criteria, appropriate accounting treatment, and identification of Paris Group. Major errors evident. Inappropriate and/or insufficient research of the relevant accounting standards and application to the case details. Major errors evident in calculations. Analysis not demonstrated with incorrect conclusions or inconsistent with analysis.

Very Good 4 Most of the possible investor- investee relationships are identified including identifying criteria, appropriate accounting treatment, and identification of Paris Group. Minor errors are evident. Evidence of rigorous research of the relevant accounting standards and application of the case details, demonstrated by the correct application of most of the relevant sections of the accounting standards with supporting calculations correct. Conclusion/s clearly demonstrated with mostly correct decision, consistent with analysis. Good 3 Some of the possible investor- investee relationships are identified including identifying criteria, appropriate accounting treatment, and identification of Paris Group. Minor errors evident. Evidence of sound research of the relevant accounting standards and application of the case details, demonstrated by the correct application of some of the relevant sections of the accounting standards with supporting calculations mostly correct. Conclusion/s demonstrated with some correct conclusions consistent with analysis.

Task Identification (5 marks) Analysis (5 marks) Conclusion (5 marks) Outstanding 5 All possible relevant investor- investee relationships are identified including identifying criteria, appropriate accounting treatment and identification of Paris Group. No errors evident. Evidence of rigorous research of the relevant accounting standards and application of the case details, demonstrated by correct application of all of the relevant sections of the accounting standards with supporting calculations correct. Conclusion/s clearly demonstrated with all correct decisions consistent with analysis.

• A ‘Formal Report’ structure with an Executive Summary and Table of Contents is NOT required given the brevity of the required information. An essay format is NOT appropriate. • The use of tables/figures/diagrams is essential. For example; a diagram is to be used to demonstrate the shareholding relationship between each entity and table/s is/are to be used to summarise voting rights and shareholding interests. • This assessment must be the sole work of the individual student and not done in collaboration with other students. Students may discuss with one another the general principles of the Accounting Standards; however, you may not collaborate/discuss on the specifics of the proposal or how the Standards are relevant to the proposal.

Formatting requirements: • Single line spaced on A4 paper with 2.5cm for all margins (be sure to customise your word document). • Font to be used is Times New Roman font size 11. • All calculations should be rounded to the nearest whole percentage amount. • You must cite the specific provisions including paragraph from the relevant AASB using one of the following two examples for in-text referencing: AASB 102:11 or AASB 102 para. 11. • Do not reproduce significant parts of the regulations / standards. The focus should be on interpretation and application of the standard, with a concise, well-structured analysis for your client with key referencing to critical elements of the appropriate accounting standards.