[splash6]

This is from Becker’s consolidated section. I’m providing a very summarized version of the question:

Potter owns 80% of Square, so equity method. Also, this is under GAAP.

Net income
Potter: 240,000
Squire: 75,000

Dividends disbursed
Potter: 90,000
Squire: 20,000

On Jan 1, Potter acquired 80% of Squire for 600,000.
So total interest = 600,000 / .80 = 750,000
Non-controlling interest = 750,000 * .20 = 150,000

HOWEVER we also have to account for net income and dividends, and this is where I’m confused. Becker uses SQUIRE’S net income and dividends to arrive at the answer, which is 75,000 and 20,000 multiplied by .20 and then backed into the 150,000 already calculated to arrive at 161,000 total non-controlling interest (net income increases interest, dividends reduce it).

WHY DO WE USE SQUIRE’S NET INCOME AND DIVIDENDS AND NOT POTTER TO GET THE ANSWER?!?

I’ve gone through each section’s MC and Simulations 3 times now and the exam for me is this Friday, so I just don’t have the time to go back through everything again. Thanks in advance. Typically useless Becker rarely ever provides the reasoning for their answers, I DESPISE Becker.

[hotshot617]

You use the subsidiary's net income and dividends because that is the entity that has a non-controlling interest. The parent company gets to report 100% of its own earnings in its consolidated financial statements.

[splash6]

That's what I was thinking but I've been looking at this stuff for so long that I sometimes forget one thing I've seen 5 times already. Can't say why, what an absolute nightmare this is.

[hotshot617]

You're telling me. I take FAR on Saturday. I'm missing so many practice MCQ's due to not “seeing” the questions properly…I am going to have to tell myself repeatedly in the exam to slow down.

Nightmare is right…Good luck.

[Keycat]

@Hotshot617 Don't drink too much coffee before your exam. Good luck to you.

[splash6]

I failed. I blew through the MC questions and the simulations killed me. When I got to the simulations, I felt like I was taking a completely different exam. I was so clueless on some of the simulations that I couldn't even guess the answer, it just plain didn't make sense. Nothing like the Becker simulations, not even related to Becker FAR material. Becker failed me again. I'm 3 for 3 with Becker.
I had this happen to me with REG the first time. I took it the second time and then the simulations were suddenly, magically actually based on what I studied for two months, and I passed.

Some of these exams are simply a dice roll. Like you can study all you want but you'll fail it if you get the wrong exam. It really is a dice roll, pure luck of the draw. The entire CPA machine is a pure racket. I wish the absolute worst on the people who make these exams. They deserve it. I spent 2 months studying FAR nonstop and half of the exam is like from another section. Just ridiculous.

[Asja]

Hey SPlash…I read your post last night…I can't believe that happened…I'm using Wiley and your experience scares me. It might be that they making the exams harder to increase the entry barrier, maybe too many CPAs? Maybe the Ninja is just too good?

Hope you recover quickly and maybe make a new post about your experience as it might get lost under a different topic.

[Author]

Replies