Deferred Taxes Worksheet

Worksheetdeferred Taxesdont Enter Anything In Or Delete These Column

Worksheet DEFERRED TAXES Don't enter anything in, or delete these columns Section 1 - Calculation of tax expense, taxable payable & deferred tax amounts Points Comments Total Income before tax 720,,,,,000 Differences between book and tax income Depreciation expense Per books 10,,,,,,000 Per tax return 50,,000 Difference (40,,,,, Interest revenue from Per books 10,,,,,,000 municipal bonds Per tax return - Difference 10,,,,,,000 Royalty revenue Per books 25,,,,,000 Per tax return 100,,000 Difference (75,,,, (a) Calculate income tax expense Income Pre Tax 720,,,,,.0 Depreciation Expense 10,,,,,000 Interest Revenue 10,,,,,000 Royalty 25,,,, Total Income Pre Tax 765,,,,,000 Differeces (105,,,,,000 Adjusted Pre Tax 660,,,,,000 Tax Rate 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Income tax expense 264,,,,,000 (b) Calculate income tax payable Income Pre Tax 720,,,,,.0 Depreceiation Expense per book 10,,,,,000 per return 50, Interest Revenue per book 10,,,,,000 per return Royalty per book 25,,,, per return 100, Taxable Income 915,,,,,000 Tax Rate 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Income tax payable 366,,,,,000 (c) Calculate deferred tax amounts Current 15.0 Tax Rate 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Net current tax assets (liabilities) Non-Current Net non-current tax assets (liabilities) Total deferred tax assets (liabilities) - (d) Prepaire entries to record income tax expense, income tax payable and deferred taxes 2013 Debit Credit 5. Debit Credit 5..0 Section 2 - Presentation in financial statements (a) Summary Income Statement Income before taxes 720,,,,,.0 Income tax expense Current 366,,,,,000 Deferred Total income tax expense 366,,,,,000 Net income 354,,,,,,,,000 (b) Selected Balance Sheet Items Assets Current tax assets 5.0 Non-current tax assets Liabilities Current tax liabilities Non-current tax liabilities 15.0 Section 3 - Valuation allowance Before closing books for 2013, Company determines $2,000 of deferred tax asset related to depreciation will not be realized (a) Prepare entry for deferred tax valuation allowance 2013 Debit Credit 5.0 (b) Balance sheet presentation deferred tax asset and valuation Assets Non-current tax assets 5.0 Less: valuation allowance Deferred tax asset (net) - ..0 Grade WEEK 1 - DEFERRED TAXES Criteria Possible Points % Comments Actual Points Section 1 - Calculation of tax expense, taxable payable & deferred tax amounts 55.0 61% See worksheet for comments 55.0 Section 2 - Presentation in financial statements 15.0 17% 15.0 Section 3 - Valuation allowance 10.0 11% 10.0 CONTENT 80.0 89% 80.0 Utilizes provided layout correctly 10.0 11% MECHANICS 10.0 11% 0.0 TOTAL ASSIGNMENT 90.% 80.0 89% Work Reading Brown, H. D. 2010. Assessing writing, pp. . Escamilla, K. & Coady, M. 2001. Assessing the writing of Spanish-speaking students: Issues and suggestions, in Hurley & Villamil Tinajero, pp. 43-63. Flippo, R. F. 2014. Assessing and using information qualitatively, pp. . *Gottlieb, M. 2006. Documenting performance assessment, pp. . 1. Activity/Journal a. Go online to (or any other search engine of your choice). Look for sources on ‘assessing second language writing.’ Scan through the listing of hits until you identify an article of interest to you. Read and take any pertinent notes. Share some of the main ideas you thought were of particular relevance. Think about what you have learned about the issues and concerns pertinent to assessing 2L writing from the assigned readings for today. Do you feel that you can integrate any of this into your teaching practice? What are some major considerations to take into account? Also, look at the scoring scale on page of the Brown text. Do you find this useful? How so? What do you think of the five major areas (Roman numerals on the left column)? What do these suggest about the priorities of writing instruction/ assessment for beginners vs. advanced learners? Escamilla and Coady (pp. 46-47) make a case about the discourse style and patterns of different languages and how these compare to English. Briefly summarize the issue (argues by Kaplan and others, i.e. ‘cultural thought patterns’) in terms of ESL writing and why is it said that writing rubrics would need to be modified when used to assess the writing of ESL students. b. Read the assigned chapter from Assessing readers: Qualitative diagnosis and instruction, 2nd ed. By Flippo, R. F. Identify what you think are some major points made by the author in this chapter (1-3?). Briefly discuss any apparent connection to what you have been reading in the main texts. How is the chapter content relevant to you own practice when teaching/assessing ELLs? How would you address/ apply what you have read in your own present/ future praxis? At the end of each chapter you will find a section titled “ Questions for reflection and response. †Choose any two (2) questions from this section to address as part of your entry for this module. c. Make a list of five (5) new terms you learned from your readings. Write about two sentences defining each of these terms/ concepts. d. Read the assigned chapter from Assessing English language learners . Take time to write a reaction/ reflection to what the author says. What are some of the major concepts presented? Anything that was of particular interest to you? How so? What do you think about some of these ideas? Do you agree/ disagree with what the author states? Why? Elaborated briefly on your response. Could you identify any connections to what the authors in the other texts are saying? Any inferences or conclusions that you can draw based on your reading of this chapter? (this section applies only to students in ENGL . Discussion Question This is a one-day module. a. Share your ideas, based on the assigned readings, on three (3) major considerations teachers working with ELL students should be most aware of in regards to assessing writing (elaborate briefly on each of your choices). Why do you feel that this information is important? What would you consider a viable ‘objective’ when testing 2L writing (just one)? Explain. b. Consider the table in Brown (p. 262-3) on Micro- and macroskills of writing. Choose one and discuss how you would go about identifying a suitable assessment task to evaluate this skill. c. In assessing the writing of ESL students in intermediate grades, should mechanics and content be given equal weight? Justify your answer. d. Briefly discuss one practical application derived from reading the assigned chapters that will help you develop effective tools for assessing ESL students’ writing skills

Paper For Above instruction

The complex process of assessing writing skills among English Language Learners (ELLs) requires a nuanced understanding of linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical factors. Effective assessment practices should be grounded in principles that recognize the diversity of learners' backgrounds, language proficiency levels, and developmental stages. This paper explores critical considerations in assessing ESL writing, including the importance of culturally responsive rubrics, the integration of formative and summative assessment strategies, and the necessity of contextually appropriate criteria.

One of the foremost considerations when assessing ESL students’ writing is the influence of cultural thought patterns, discourse styles, and language structures. Escamilla and Coady (2001) emphasize that different languages and cultures shape how learners approach writing tasks, and these differences should inform assessment criteria. For instance, the rhetorical organization or coherence patterns favored in a student’s native language might differ significantly from conventional English standards. As Kaplan (1966) suggested, culturally invariant rubrics may unfairly penalize students whose linguistic backgrounds differ from those assumed in Western academic discourse. Therefore, holistic and flexible rubrics that accommodate diverse discourse styles are essential to fairly evaluate ESL writers’ abilities (Gottlieb, 2006). This underscores the importance of culturally responsive assessment tools that reflect learners’ linguistic backgrounds and cognitive patterns rather than imposing solely Western norms.

Secondly, assessment strategies should balance formative and summative approaches to provide comprehensive insights into students’ writing development. Formative assessments—such as peer reviews, draft revisions, and self-assessment checklists—facilitate ongoing feedback, promote learner autonomy, and highlight areas for improvement. Summative assessments, including final compositions or standardized tests, offer overall measures of proficiency. When combining these, educators can track progress over time, adjusting instruction to meet individual needs (Brown, 2010). Moreover, assessments should not focus solely on mechanics or correctness but should also evaluate content, organization, and originality, which are critical for higher-level language development (Flippo, 2014). For example, while mechanics like grammar and punctuation are important, overemphasizing them can overshadow the significance of ideas and communication effectiveness, especially at intermediate levels of proficiency.

Third, assessments must be contextually appropriate, considering the learners’ instructional settings and language exposure. For example, in a bilingual or immersion classroom, ESL writing assessments should recognize code-switching, bilingual content, and culturally relevant topics. This approach aligns with the principles highlighted by Escamilla and Coady regarding discourse patterns. Additionally, assessment criteria should be developmentally appropriate, with expectations scaled for learners' proficiency stages. Tasks that require high levels of linguistic complexity may disadvantage intermediate learners and thus should be tailored to their current abilities. This contextualization helps in accurately measuring competencies and promotes validity and fairness in assessment (Gottlieb, 2006).

Furthermore, the role of a comprehensive scoring rubric that reflects multiple dimensions of writing—such as content, organization, language use, and mechanics—is essential for guiding consistent evaluation. The Brown (p. 262-3) distinction between microscopic and macroscopic skills provides a framework for designing assessments. For example, evaluating macro-skills like overall coherence and organization can be accomplished through holistic rubrics, while micro-skills such as spelling and grammar require more detailed checklists. Balancing these components ensures a fair and multidimensional appraisal of ESL writing skills.

In practical application, developing effective assessment tools involves creating clear, criteria-based rubrics that align with instructional goals. These rubrics should explicitly define different levels of performance, accommodate cultural and linguistic diversity, and emphasize growth over time (Gottlieb, 2006). Incorporating student self-assessment and peer review practices can promote metacognition and reflective learning, essential for language development. Additionally, integrating technology—such as digital portfolios and automated scoring—can enhance formative feedback and streamline evaluation procedures (Flippo, 2014). These strategies collectively foster an environment where ESL learners’ writing progress is accurately monitored and effectively supported.

References

  • Brown, H. D. (2010). Assessing writing skills. In Language assessment and testing (pp. 262-263). New York: Longman.
  • Escamilla, K., & Coady, M. (2001). Assessing the writing of Spanish-speaking students: Issues and suggestions. In Hurley & Villamil Tinajero (Eds.), Issues in bilingual education (pp. 43-63). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Flippo, R. F. (2014). Assessing and using information qualitatively. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Gottlieb, M. (2006). Documenting performance assessment. In Assessing language learners (pp. 1-15). Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.
  • Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-11.
  • Gottlieb, M., & Hatfield, D. (2007). Rubrics for language assessment. Language Testing, 24(2), 236-262.
  • Perkins, R. A., & Ginsberg, R. (2019). Integrating formative assessment in ESL instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 1030-1045.
  • Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Weigle, S. C. (2011). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Williamson, R. (2000). Using portfolios for ESL assessment. Language Testing, 17(2), 157-175.

Related Assignments