Assignment This assignment has 2 parts, 1000 + 10% word theory interpretation essay and a response to a practical application of the theory. The assignment must be typed, use Arial font, 12, to avoid plagiarism, make sure you do proper referencing, at least use 6 references, to be submitted the soft copy in Turnitin and hard copy in lecture Week 10. Please ensure you attach a KOI assignment cover sheet, with ID numbers and signed. Late assignments will be penalised, 10% deduction per day. Part A: 1000 word short essay about the following: At 30 June 2014, Longreach Ltd is considering undertaking an impairment test. Having only recently adopted the international accounting standards, the management of Longreach Ltd seeks your advice in relation to this test under AASB 136 Impairment of Assets. Required Write a report to management, specifically explaining: 1. the purpose of the impairment test 2. how the existence of goodwill will affect the impairment test 3. the basic steps to be followed in applying the impairment test. Part B: Crossbow Ltd is an entity that specialises in the manufacture of leather footwear for women. It has aggressively undertaken a strategy of buying out other companies that had competing products. These companies were liquidated and the assets and liabilities brought into Crossbow Ltd. At 30 June 2015, Crossbow Ltd reported the following assets in its statement of financial position: Land $200 000 Inventory products 180 000 Brand 'Crossbow Shoes' 160 000 Shoe factory 700 000 Machinery for manufacturing shoes 400 000 Goodwill on acquisition of competing companies 40 000 $1 680 000 Because of the competition from overseas as customers pursue a strategy of buying online rather than visit Crossbow Ltd's stores, Crossbow Ltd assessed its impairment position at 30 June 2015. The indicators suggested that an impairment loss was probable. Crossbow Ltd calculated a recoverable amount of its company of $1 420 000. The fair value less costs of disposal of the land was $171 000. Required Prepare the journal entry(ies) for any impairment loss occurring at 30 June 2015. High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Criteria (80 – 100%) (70 – 79% (60 – 69% (50 – 59%) (0 – 49%) Research – extent and application Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify analysis. Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of current and relevant sources to systematically build and justify analysis. Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies analysis. Minimum number of sources, not all current or relevant. Inaccurate, inappropriate or no use of literature. Analysis not developed.   Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way. Minimum paraphrasing Paraphrasing used throughout but accompanied by original explanations Paraphrasing used throughout but not always accompanied by original explanations. No original explanations provided. Value 10%           Mark awarded           Analysis of the question Identifies and insightfully discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation's capabilities. Identifies and clearly explains Identifies and discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation's capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation. Simple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in the organisation's capabilities. Poor evaluation.   Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. areas of strength and weakness in the organisation's capabilities. All aspects of the task completed – some cohesion. Work reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory. Significant gaps in knowledge of the theory and lack of understanding of company's capabilities. Value 20% All aspects of the task completed in a comprehensive and cohesive manner Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation.   Not all aspects of task completed In sufficient detail. No analysis provided. Mark awarded           Recommendations / conclusions Excellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Very good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation's capabilities Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not be linked back systematically to relevant theory Some recommendations made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory. Few or no recommendations made / no justification.   Theory used in insightful way to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation's capabilities Any recommendations made are not supported or are inaccurate. Value 10%     Mark awarded     Calculations Performs accurate calculations which are sufficiently comprehensive to solve the problem(s). Performs mostly accurate calculations which are sufficiently comprehensive to solve the problem(s). Performs mostly accurate calculations which are sufficiently comprehensive to solve most (of the) problem(s). Performs calculations which solve the basic and/or most obvious problem(s). Does not perform accurate calculations. All formulae and workings provided. Most/all formulae and workings provided - minimal gaps. Most formulae and workings provided - some gaps. Main formulae and workings only provided. Formulae and workings either not provided or incomplete. No errors Minimal errors Minor errors Some errors. Many errors. Value 30%           Mark awarded           Journal Entries Gives a complete response Gives a fairly complete response with reasonably clear explanations or descriptions. Includes nearly all complete, appropriate diagram(s). Makes significant progress towards completion of the problem, but the explanation or description may be somewhat ambiguous or unclear. Has some satisfactory elements but may fail to complete or may omit significant parts of the problem. Communicates ineffectively. Value 20%           Mark awarded           Presentation Highly professional presentation – satisfies all presentation elements. Professional presentation – minor errors in some elements. Good presentation overall but some obvious errors. Acceptable presentation – obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail. Referencing is absent / not systematic / incorrect   Correct referencing throughout Correct referencing throughout Referencing is mainly accurate Some attempt at referencing but