[tmturner74]

Is it ok to start a FAR Study Group? I retook Audit yesterday and although I don’t have a gut feeling either way if I passed or not, I am going to start on FAR. I am using Becker self-study and purchased the Ninja Notes for FAR.

I am looking forward to reading a/b everyone’s progression. Good Luck!

 

Aud- 11/28/12 (72), 02/27/13 (72), 04/06/2013 77!!
FAR-tbd
BEC-tbd
REG-tbd

[Tncincy]

@mustpass1988, since you bring it up I will be looking for the PV factors as I study. It is amazing how one review course can see something important and another don't cover the topic all and another is too thorough….decisions… decisions.

It begins with a 75
Been here too long as a cheerleader....ready to pass

[Anonymous]

I memorized the PV formula just in case…when I was practicing research on the Wiley Test Bank I was able to pull up the spreadsheet tool but it kinda stinks….in excel when you type a formula it shows you what goes next, when to separate by comma, etc..this is not the case with the spreadsheet tool. Also, there is no spreadsheet tool for the MCQ. My advice would be to memorize the excel formula. Also, memorize the actual formula to to create your own PV table… I know…exciting!!! Lol… The formula for PV of 1 is as follows; 1/(1+i)^n

[Anonymous]

I memorized the PV formula just in case…when I was practicing research on the Wiley Test Bank I was able to pull up the spreadsheet tool but it kinda stinks….in excel when you type a formula it shows you what goes next, when to separate by comma, etc..this is not the case with the spreadsheet tool. Also, there is no spreadsheet tool for the MCQ. My advice would be to memorize the excel formula. Also, memorize the actual formula to to create your own PV table… I know…exciting!!! Lol… The formula for PV of 1 is as follows; 1/(1+i)^n

[Anonymous]

An example would be if interest is 6% and term is 10 yrs we would calculate as follows; 1/(1+.06)^10=.558

[Anonymous]

An example would be if interest is 6% and term is 10 yrs we would calculate as follows; 1/(1+.06)^10=.558

[MustPass1988]

FAR is killing me- I'm scheduled to take the exam on May 10th and I don't think I'm going to be able to do it. Everything is just taking longer than it should be. For example, I started leases today…WTF. That's all I have to say about leases at this point. So instead of spending one full day on leases like I planned, I'll be spending two full days. I just hope at some point I get to lectures that I don't have to repeat and homework that is 20 MCQ's instead of 75-100 because at this rate, I'm going to be taking this thing in July!

AUD: PASSED [81]; Expired, retaking August 23rd
BEC: PASSED [83]; Expired, retaking July 11th
REG: PASSED [83]
FAR: FAILED [64]; Retaking May 23rd

[MustPass1988]

FAR is killing me- I'm scheduled to take the exam on May 10th and I don't think I'm going to be able to do it. Everything is just taking longer than it should be. For example, I started leases today…WTF. That's all I have to say about leases at this point. So instead of spending one full day on leases like I planned, I'll be spending two full days. I just hope at some point I get to lectures that I don't have to repeat and homework that is 20 MCQ's instead of 75-100 because at this rate, I'm going to be taking this thing in July!

AUD: PASSED [81]; Expired, retaking August 23rd
BEC: PASSED [83]; Expired, retaking July 11th
REG: PASSED [83]
FAR: FAILED [64]; Retaking May 23rd

[MrsBing]

I'm re-doing F2 homework and thought I got this one right, but Becker is saying it's wrong. Can someone explain this to me. Here's the question and my answer/question is at the bottom along with Becker's answer and explanation:

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:

a. $8,000

b. $10,000

c. $13,000

d. $12,000

---

I figured the answer was $12,000. Since it lacks commercial substance and boot is paid no gain should be recognized, so BV of $2,000 + $10,000 cash paid = $12,000

Becker is saying it's $13,000 with the below explanation. The book says if boot is paid, don't recognize a gain, but if boot is received, then either a proportion or all of the gain is recognized. It seems like the explanation is treating this like we received boot, when we didn't. I thought I had non-monetary transactions down.

Explanation:

Choice “c” is correct. 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.

Choice “d” is incorrect. This is an exchange where the boot is greater than 25% of the total consideration. The boot is $10,000 and the total consideration is $13,000 (boot plus $3,000 fair value of Elbert's old truck.) Therefore, all gains and losses are recognized by both parties to the transaction. The gain to Elbert is $1,000, or the difference between the fair value of the truck of $3,000 and the carrying value of $2,000. The gain must be recognized, leading to a recorded cost of Elbert's new truck of $13,000. The rule states that when the boot exceeds 25% of the total consideration, the transaction is considered to be monetary.

Becker, Wiley Test Bank, and Ninja 10 Point Combo!

FAR: 89
REG: 87
AUD: 92
BEC: 75
Ethics: 90

Licensed Arizona CPA

[MrsBing]

I'm re-doing F2 homework and thought I got this one right, but Becker is saying it's wrong. Can someone explain this to me. Here's the question and my answer/question is at the bottom along with Becker's answer and explanation:

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:

a. $8,000

b. $10,000

c. $13,000

d. $12,000

---

I figured the answer was $12,000. Since it lacks commercial substance and boot is paid no gain should be recognized, so BV of $2,000 + $10,000 cash paid = $12,000

Becker is saying it's $13,000 with the below explanation. The book says if boot is paid, don't recognize a gain, but if boot is received, then either a proportion or all of the gain is recognized. It seems like the explanation is treating this like we received boot, when we didn't. I thought I had non-monetary transactions down.

Explanation:

Choice “c” is correct. 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.

Choice “d” is incorrect. This is an exchange where the boot is greater than 25% of the total consideration. The boot is $10,000 and the total consideration is $13,000 (boot plus $3,000 fair value of Elbert's old truck.) Therefore, all gains and losses are recognized by both parties to the transaction. The gain to Elbert is $1,000, or the difference between the fair value of the truck of $3,000 and the carrying value of $2,000. The gain must be recognized, leading to a recorded cost of Elbert's new truck of $13,000. The rule states that when the boot exceeds 25% of the total consideration, the transaction is considered to be monetary.

Becker, Wiley Test Bank, and Ninja 10 Point Combo!

FAR: 89
REG: 87
AUD: 92
BEC: 75
Ethics: 90

Licensed Arizona CPA

[Anonymous]

@MrsBing am sure it is 12000,it is boot paid so there is no gain

it is a mistake from Becker for sure

[Anonymous]

@MrsBing am sure it is 12000,it is boot paid so there is no gain

it is a mistake from Becker for sure

[MustPass1988]

Yeah, that's definitely not right. That would be the answer if they recorded it on Wanda's books but Elbert would never record a gain because A) it lacked commercial substance and B) when there is no commercial substance all gains are deferred, unless boot is RECEIVED. The only “trick” to this question is that the boot received by Wanda was over 25% of the total consideration received so she would recognize all of the gain rather than just a proportionate amount of proceeds received. Can you submit this to Becker? I want to see what they say about it but unless I wasn't taught something, there's 100% no way this answer is right.

AUD: PASSED [81]; Expired, retaking August 23rd
BEC: PASSED [83]; Expired, retaking July 11th
REG: PASSED [83]
FAR: FAILED [64]; Retaking May 23rd

[MustPass1988]

Yeah, that's definitely not right. That would be the answer if they recorded it on Wanda's books but Elbert would never record a gain because A) it lacked commercial substance and B) when there is no commercial substance all gains are deferred, unless boot is RECEIVED. The only “trick” to this question is that the boot received by Wanda was over 25% of the total consideration received so she would recognize all of the gain rather than just a proportionate amount of proceeds received. Can you submit this to Becker? I want to see what they say about it but unless I wasn't taught something, there's 100% no way this answer is right.

AUD: PASSED [81]; Expired, retaking August 23rd
BEC: PASSED [83]; Expired, retaking July 11th
REG: PASSED [83]
FAR: FAILED [64]; Retaking May 23rd

[10keyLeah]

Thanks for posting the PV formula, Casagarber. It's not a complicated formula, but it's just one more drop in sea of things to remember. I keep getting tripped up on cash to accrual, accrual to cash. Anyone have any tips for that?

Ninja Combo, Yaeger, Wiley -- Licensed CPA, May 2015

[10keyLeah]

Thanks for posting the PV formula, Casagarber. It's not a complicated formula, but it's just one more drop in sea of things to remember. I keep getting tripped up on cash to accrual, accrual to cash. Anyone have any tips for that?

Ninja Combo, Yaeger, Wiley -- Licensed CPA, May 2015

[Author]

Replies