Assessment: A 2500-word essay.
This contributes to 100% of the assessment of this module. The following is the details of the essay.
Details for the essay:
Read the two articles
1. Brussels criticises Apples Irish tax deals. Financial Times. 30th September 2014.
2. Dowling, G. 2014. The Curious Case of Corporate Tax Avoidance: Is it Socially
Irresponsible? Journal of Business Ethics. 124:173184.
The essay should have the following four components
Part 1: Outline the contents and views of the two articles.
Part 2: Discuss your views on whether it is ethical for multinational corporations to arbitrage countries by their corporate tax rates. (You can discuss it from the perspective of the owners, shareholders, top management, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, and society at large. You do not have to cover every aspect unless you want to)
Part 3: What is your opinion regarding the social, economic and moral implications of the fact that some national governments provide special tax treatment for multinational corporations (MNCs)?
Part 4: Do you think that there should be more international coordination to combat tax avoidance by MNCs? Why? How?
The title of the essay should be determined by students themselves, which should reflect the content of their work.
Practical guidance for writing:
Part 1: suggest 300-500 words
Part 2: suggest 600-700 words
Part 3: suggest 600-700 words
Part 4: suggest 600-700 words
Total word limit 2500 excluding references
Keep your argument focused and coherent. If there is a choice to be made between the width and depth of your argument, depth should be your choice. It will better demonstrate your analytical ability.
Do not be afraid to say something different. You do not have to agree with others.
Use your own words. Do not copy and paste.
Simple structure, good language. Make it readable.
How is your essay assessed? We will use a University grader (attached) to evaluate your essay. The following are the main features that you may like to focus on and keep in mind:
Clarity: do you really understand what you are talking about?
Logic: is it convincing?
Depth: are your critical? Do you see the essence of the matter?
Creativity: can you think out of box? Do you see something unseen by others?
Problem-solving: can you provide some practical solutions to address or mitigate the problem?
Source: Can you use excellent academic sources in developing and supporting your arguments?
Mark RangeDescriptionCharacteristics
70-100ExcellentExcellent mastery of the set topic evidenced by a critical analysis of the core argument in the case, Justification of all arguments; Well-motivated recommendations
60-69GoodGood understanding of the relevant material providing a sound analysis of the case, which is well-informed by relevant IB and comparative theories; Adequately substantiated recommendations
50-59SatisfactorySufficient understanding of the set topic in respect of key issues in the case with some justification of arguments and critical reflections, Some substantiation of recommendations.
40-49PassSome attempt to address the case problem, but poor level of understanding and analysis. The analysis is not well informed by relevant theories, and bear limited or misinformed recommendations.
<=39FailThe case text is largely repeated, either in part or in an incorrect manner
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!