[Q3] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 101

Viewing 15 replies - 1,501 through 1,515 (of 2,797 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #598981
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Thanks LavishgirlCPA

    #598982
    D C
    Member

    this might be a stupid question but are convertible bonds the same as bonds with non-detachable warrants? you can't separate the conversion or warrant feature from the bond itself, so i'm thinking they are the same thing. or two different items treated for in the same manner? i thought i had this straight until i drove myself to confusion…

    B - 80
    A - 71, 67, 77
    R - 71, 77
    F - 72, 77
    DONE!!
    Becker Self-study all the way! Did use Ninja Notes & Audio for FAR.

    #598983
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    deleted

    #598984
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @LavishgirlCPA you never know. just go as hard as you can and give it your all. heard lots of stories of people barely studying and passing. just give it your all

    #598985
    ahugemistake
    Participant

    This is a minor leaseback. Since the PV of the leaseback is 10% or less than the assets FMV, then the gain recognized immediately and not deferred.

    FAR - 78*
    AUD - 66, 79
    REG - 73, 76
    BEC - 79

    #598986
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Dahl Co. traded a delivery van and $5,000 cash for a newer van owned by West Corp. The following information relates to the values of the vans on the exchange date:

    …………………..Carrying Value…. Fair Value

    Old van…………….$30,000…………..$45,000

    New van……………40,000……………..50,000

    Dahl's income tax rate is 30%. What amounts should Dahl report as gain on exchange of the vans?

    Incorrect A. $0

    B. $1,000

    C. $700

    Correct D. $15,000

    Explanation: In Dahl's case, criterion (1) is met because the configuration of the future cash flows associated with the asset received (a new van) differs significantly from the future cash flows of the asset surrendered (the old van and cash). Therefore, the exchange has commercial substance and must be accounted for based on fair value.

    How configuration of the future cash flows associated with the asset received (a new van) differs significantly from the future cash flows of the asset surrendered? I don't get it, they are two similar vans. I would think this transaction lacks commercial substance and the answer should be A? No?

    #598987
    ahugemistake
    Participant

    Anna you are right, the question is not very clear on the functions of either of the new van for us to determine that, but I am assuming since this is a brand new van it might yield a higher cash flow then the old? not sure though.

    FAR - 78*
    AUD - 66, 79
    REG - 73, 76
    BEC - 79

    #598988

    @anjaja – I agree with you! Usually though the questions on the exam will be specific and state whether future cash flows will change significantly for an asset acquired that will let you know that the exchange has commercial substance. Since this exchange lacks commerical substance and no boot is received, no gain would be recognized.

    BEC: 65 - 79* - 84 DONE
    AUD: 65 - 76 DONE
    REG: 63 - 77 DONE
    FAR: 65 - 63 - 67 - 69 - 73 - 71 - 83 DONE

    Becker Notes & Flashcards, Wiley Test Bank, Ninja MCQ

    #598989
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Peg Co. leased equipment from Howe Corp. on July 1, Year 1 for an eight-year period expiring June 30, Year 9. Equal payments under the lease are $600,000 and are due on July 1 of each year. The first payment was made on July 1, Year 1. The rate of interest contemplated by Peg and Howe is 10%. The cash selling price of the equipment is $3,520,000, and the cost of the equipment on Howe's accounting records is $2,800,000. The lease is appropriately recorded as a sales-type (finance) lease. What is the amount of profit on the sale and interest revenue that Howe should record for the year ended December 31, Year 1?

    Answer – $720,000 profit on sale and $146,000 interest revenue.

    PV at inception of the lease at 7/1/Year 1 $ 3,520,000

    Less initial payment 7/1/Year 1 (600,000)

    Balance during first year 2,920,000

    Interest rate x 10%

    Interest revenue 7/1/Y1 to 6/30/Year 2 (12 mos) 292,000

    Adjust from full year to half year x ½ yr

    Interest revenue for year end 12/31/Year 1 $ 146,000

    MY question: Why is 3,520,000 PV of minimum lease payments? I thought to get PV you take PV of equal payments of (600,000×7) , not 8 since one payment has been made already.

    #598990
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I didn't think the van was actually brand new, I thought it was just named “new”

    #598991
    ahugemistake
    Participant

    Ya I assumed that was the FMV not PV of the equipment since they called it the selling price.

    FAR - 78*
    AUD - 66, 79
    REG - 73, 76
    BEC - 79

    #598992
    D C
    Member

    $3,520,000 is considered to be FMV. Since they do not give us any other information regarding PV factors/calculation etc. We assume this is the lower of the two items therefore book the lease at $3,520,000.

    You would not just simply multiple 600k * 7. There is no consideration for PV or market factors. The way the information is listed, you the given cash price.

    Also, the only time this comes up is when they specifically state this is the “cash price” I have not encountered this scenario in other questions. I'm not sure if anyone else has the same experience.

    B - 80
    A - 71, 67, 77
    R - 71, 77
    F - 72, 77
    DONE!!
    Becker Self-study all the way! Did use Ninja Notes & Audio for FAR.

    #598993
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @ anjanja The answer is probably correct but the explanation could be wrong. The transaction is still considered non-monetary since the boot received was less than 25%. Therefore the new asset will be measured at FV of asset given up + any boot paid. The entry will be:

    Dr. New Van 50,000 (FV of asset given up 45000 + boot paid 5000)

    Cr. Old Van 30,000

    Cr. Gain on sale 15,000 (FV of asset given up minus carrying value)

    Cr. Cash 5,000

    #598994
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    CPAby2015,

    But if there was a boot the transaction would be lacking commercial substance? Dahl paid boot so it shouldn't be recognizing any gain?

    #598995
    D C
    Member

    @anjana

    Agreed boot paid=no gain recognition for Dhal as the question asks for. A truck for truck seems like a lack of commercial substance to me. New vs old is getting to into the weeds if you ask me or the question needs to be more clear to state that it will affect future cash flows,

    BUT keep in mind the exam will clearly state wether or not the exchange lacks or has commercial substance as this is a very subjective issue.

    B - 80
    A - 71, 67, 77
    R - 71, 77
    F - 72, 77
    DONE!!
    Becker Self-study all the way! Did use Ninja Notes & Audio for FAR.

Viewing 15 replies - 1,501 through 1,515 (of 2,797 total)
  • The topic ‘[Q3] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 101’ is closed to new replies.