[Q2] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 323

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #183478
    jeff
    Keymaster

    I’ve had a few requests for April/May Study Groups…March will be here before you know it.

    In order to take an early April exam, you should begin studying…now. 🙂

    Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

Viewing 15 replies - 4,831 through 4,845 (of 6,668 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #565392
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Can somebody please help me on this question- It's driving me crazy and I'm desperate to get it figured out.

    On January 2, Elbert's Delivery Company and Wanda's Exporters exchanged similar delivery trucks in an exchange that lacks commercial substance. Data relative to the trucks follow:

    Elbert's truck

    Original cost

    $10,000

    Accumulated depreciation as of January 2

    8,000

    Fair market value

    3,000

    Wanda's truck

    Book value

    $15,000

    In the exchange, Elbert paid Wanda cash of $10,000. Elbert's Delivery Company should record the new truck at:

    My answer is:

    Dr: New Asset: 12,000

    Dr: A/D: 8000

    Cr: Old Asset: 10,000

    Cr: Cash Paid: 10,000

    however, that isn't correct…Becker is saying there's a gain which makes NO sense to me since boot is paid and the exchange lacks commercial substance.

    The new truck is recorded at $13,000 on Elbert's books. In this case, the transaction is considered to be a monetary exchange, because the boot ($10,000) exceeds 25% of the total consideration ($10,000 plus $3,000 fair value of the old truck transferred to Wanda). Therefore, both parties to the exchange recognize all gains and losses on the transaction. The journal entry prepared by Elbert follows:

    Dr: Truck-New $ 13,000

    Dr: Accum. Depre. 8,000

    Cr: Cash $ 10,000

    Cr: Truck-Old 10,000

    Cr: Gain 1,000

    #565393
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Wait…so if boot paid is more than 25%, it goes from a nonmonetary exchange to a monetary exchange? Therefore, all gains and losses would be recognized? is that why they are recognizing the gain?

    #565394
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    yeah since it's not considered boot (more than 25%), you recognize your new asset at FMV of the asset given up + cash paid

    #565395
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Becker didn't even go over that concept…I've been trying to figure that out for the last 6 weeks and now finally three days before my test…grrrrr.

    #565396
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I spent a lot of time trying to understand it but still not completely sure.

    You actually should choose LCM

    FMV of the asset given up + cash paid – cash received

    fmv of asset received

    BV of asset given up + cash paid – cash received

    in this case I would think it should be 12000. Roger also says that the gain should be deferred when transaction lacks commercial substance, I am not sure how it would be recorded.

    #565397
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Would you think of it as essentially having commercial substance? Therefore, you would choose the first one out of those three? I know if its lack commercial substance then you would choose the lower of those three

    #565398
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The answer implies that the transaction has commercial substance because when it does, all gains/losses are recognized and new asset is recorded at FMV of the asset given up + cash paid – cash received (if known). At the same time the question clearly states “exchange that lacks commercial substance”.

    #565399
    kazlotec
    Member

    Hello everyone! I was hoping to see if anyone had any tips or tricks on how to remember the qualitative characteristics and enhancing qualitative characteristics for FAR. If anyone has any tips or tricks I would greatly appreciate it! I have been trying to make up a phrase or saying to remember but I keep failing at this.

    #565400
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Relevance = PC

    Faithful rep = FENCe

    Enhancement = CUT-V

    #565401
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    For the Question Below – I know the answer but I want to know of a situation where accounting change is inseparable from the effects of a change of accounting estimate

    Is this there smart way of saying example – FIFO to LIFO ?

    The effect of a change in accounting principle which is inseparable from the effect of a change in accounting estimate should be reported

    By restating the financial statements of all prior periods presented.

    By showing the pro forma effects of retroactive application.

    As a correction of an error.

    In the period of change and future periods if the change affects both.

    #565402
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Is it B or D? D?

    #565403
    CPAfit
    Participant

    D

    #565404
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    its D -In the period of change and future periods if the change affects both.

    I know the answer but I want to know of a situation where accounting change is inseparable from the effects of a change of accounting estimate

    Is this there smart way of saying example – FIFO to LIFO ?

    #565405
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I didn't think LIFO or FIFO involved estimations really, or do they?

    #565406
    RedSoxFan77
    Member

    lol, InsiWinsi/Insi/Kenada/brainfarts, if there was a prize for the most name changes… 🙂

    FAR 75
    AUD 74, 82
    REG 58, 74, 83
    BEC 68, 75
    Licensed 7.1.14!!!

Viewing 15 replies - 4,831 through 4,845 (of 6,668 total)
  • The topic ‘[Q2] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 323’ is closed to new replies.