FAR Study Group October November 2013 - Page 39

  • This topic has 1,757 replies, 131 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by FAR Study Group MCQ’s.
Viewing 15 replies - 571 through 585 (of 1,757 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #476495
    Monir
    Member

    I need a little refesher, what is the purpose for the contra assets and liabilities account. I know contra assets accounts usually have credit balance ( vice versa for contra liabilities account) in case for uncollectable/ write off. I just wanna be clear how it's work . Any inputs I will be appreciated

    Thx

    #476563
    Monir
    Member

    I need a little refesher, what is the purpose for the contra assets and liabilities account. I know contra assets accounts usually have credit balance ( vice versa for contra liabilities account) in case for uncollectable/ write off. I just wanna be clear how it's work . Any inputs I will be appreciated

    Thx

    #476497
    NYCaccountant
    Participant

    @ Monir Usually to reduce the historical cost of an asset or liability to it's current carrying value. Example would the discount on bonds, allowance for bad debt, allowance to reduce deferred asset to net realizable value, ect.

    FAR - 93
    REG - 87
    BEC - 84!!!!
    AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

    #476565
    NYCaccountant
    Participant

    @ Monir Usually to reduce the historical cost of an asset or liability to it's current carrying value. Example would the discount on bonds, allowance for bad debt, allowance to reduce deferred asset to net realizable value, ect.

    FAR - 93
    REG - 87
    BEC - 84!!!!
    AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

    #476499
    Monir
    Member

    @NYC, Thx

    #476567
    Monir
    Member

    @NYC, Thx

    #476501
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @CPA2014Dream, when I said “as the explanation mentions” in my last post to you I hope that didn't come off the wrong way. That's the problem with posting; text has not “tone.” What I meant was that I was just referring back to the explanation language and building from it.

    #476569
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @CPA2014Dream, when I said “as the explanation mentions” in my last post to you I hope that didn't come off the wrong way. That's the problem with posting; text has not “tone.” What I meant was that I was just referring back to the explanation language and building from it.

    #476503
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The following information pertains to Deal Corp.'s cost of goods sold:

    Inventory, 1/1 $ 90,000

    Purchases 124,000

    Write-off of obsolete inventory 34,000

    Inventory, 12/31 30,000

    The inventory written off became obsolete due to an unexpected and unusual technological advance by a competitor. In its income statement, what amount should Deal report as cost of goods sold?

    a. $218,000

    b. $150,000

    c. $184,000

    d. $124,000

    Choice “b” is correct. The cost of goods sold is calculated as follows:

    90,000 Inventory, 1/1

    +124,000 Purchases

    = 214,000 Goods available

    – (34,000) Obsolete inventory

    – (30,000) Inventory, 12/31

    = 150,000 Cost of goods sold

    The write-off of obsolete inventory is treated as an operating loss and not as cost of goods sold. [BUT BY VIRTUE OF SUBRACTING IT LIKE THIS ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING? SHOULDN'T THE COGS BE $184,000 AND THE $34,000 SHOULD BE TREATED AS A TOTALLY SEPRATE EXPENSE?]

    Choice “a” is incorrect. The $34,000 write off of inventory is subtracted, not added to inventory.

    Choice “c” is incorrect. Obsolete inventory is not included in cost of goods sold. It is deducted from inventory and included in unusual gains or losses on the income statement. Total reduction in inventory is $184,000, but $34,000 is not included in cost of goods sold.

    Choice “d” is incorrect. Purchases reflect costs of goods sold on a cash basis, not on an accrual basis.

    #476571
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The following information pertains to Deal Corp.'s cost of goods sold:

    Inventory, 1/1 $ 90,000

    Purchases 124,000

    Write-off of obsolete inventory 34,000

    Inventory, 12/31 30,000

    The inventory written off became obsolete due to an unexpected and unusual technological advance by a competitor. In its income statement, what amount should Deal report as cost of goods sold?

    a. $218,000

    b. $150,000

    c. $184,000

    d. $124,000

    Choice “b” is correct. The cost of goods sold is calculated as follows:

    90,000 Inventory, 1/1

    +124,000 Purchases

    = 214,000 Goods available

    – (34,000) Obsolete inventory

    – (30,000) Inventory, 12/31

    = 150,000 Cost of goods sold

    The write-off of obsolete inventory is treated as an operating loss and not as cost of goods sold. [BUT BY VIRTUE OF SUBRACTING IT LIKE THIS ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING? SHOULDN'T THE COGS BE $184,000 AND THE $34,000 SHOULD BE TREATED AS A TOTALLY SEPRATE EXPENSE?]

    Choice “a” is incorrect. The $34,000 write off of inventory is subtracted, not added to inventory.

    Choice “c” is incorrect. Obsolete inventory is not included in cost of goods sold. It is deducted from inventory and included in unusual gains or losses on the income statement. Total reduction in inventory is $184,000, but $34,000 is not included in cost of goods sold.

    Choice “d” is incorrect. Purchases reflect costs of goods sold on a cash basis, not on an accrual basis.

    #476505
    ZSRizvi
    Member

    @NYC

    I'm sorry for the delayed response but I finally understood that DTA/DTL question! Took me like 30 minutes but finally! LOL.

    Seriously though, not looking forward to the exam next Thursday. I'm still averaging in the low 80s so… It's not even the computation problems that are killing me as much as the concept questions are.

    Also, I think Becker needs to focus on giving more problems with journal entries; both in the MCQ and in the Simulations. There's barely any SIMs for Gov. Accounting!

    @DJN

    If COGS were reported at $184,000 and then a separate expense was reported again, then it would be overstating expenses. Unless you mean a sort of “contra-account” for COGS but, then again, it makes more sense for the answer to be $150,000. How can COGS be $184,000 when $34,000 of those goods weren't sold in the first place? They were written off, which means they were either scrapped or discarded. πŸ™‚

    I know Becker makes us go by the “BASE” formula but some times modifications have to be made to the formula.

    I feel compelled to add ” πŸ™‚ ” at the end of the sentences so I don't come off sounding like I have an attitude. As you mentioned above, it's hard to infer what the tone is just by reading the text. -.-

    BEC (July 2013)
    FAR (OCT 2013)
    REG (NOV 2013)
    AUD (JAN 2014)

    The CPA Exam is an opponent that not even the Fellowship of the Ring would want to come across.

    I have a long...long...journey ahead of me.

    #476573
    ZSRizvi
    Member

    @NYC

    I'm sorry for the delayed response but I finally understood that DTA/DTL question! Took me like 30 minutes but finally! LOL.

    Seriously though, not looking forward to the exam next Thursday. I'm still averaging in the low 80s so… It's not even the computation problems that are killing me as much as the concept questions are.

    Also, I think Becker needs to focus on giving more problems with journal entries; both in the MCQ and in the Simulations. There's barely any SIMs for Gov. Accounting!

    @DJN

    If COGS were reported at $184,000 and then a separate expense was reported again, then it would be overstating expenses. Unless you mean a sort of “contra-account” for COGS but, then again, it makes more sense for the answer to be $150,000. How can COGS be $184,000 when $34,000 of those goods weren't sold in the first place? They were written off, which means they were either scrapped or discarded. πŸ™‚

    I know Becker makes us go by the “BASE” formula but some times modifications have to be made to the formula.

    I feel compelled to add ” πŸ™‚ ” at the end of the sentences so I don't come off sounding like I have an attitude. As you mentioned above, it's hard to infer what the tone is just by reading the text. -.-

    BEC (July 2013)
    FAR (OCT 2013)
    REG (NOV 2013)
    AUD (JAN 2014)

    The CPA Exam is an opponent that not even the Fellowship of the Ring would want to come across.

    I have a long...long...journey ahead of me.

    #476507
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @ZSRizvi – Thank you for that explanation!

    And no worries at all – your “tone” is totally good! I just went back and revisited my post to CPA2014Dream earlier because I was afraid I sounded condescending with my wording, and I did not mean to come across that way. Ah; the joy of the internet…

    #476575
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @ZSRizvi – Thank you for that explanation!

    And no worries at all – your “tone” is totally good! I just went back and revisited my post to CPA2014Dream earlier because I was afraid I sounded condescending with my wording, and I did not mean to come across that way. Ah; the joy of the internet…

    #476509
    NYCaccountant
    Participant

    @DJN you are almost done!!!. Must be exciting. I'm just getting started, so depressed is my mood lol.

    FAR - 93
    REG - 87
    BEC - 84!!!!
    AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

Viewing 15 replies - 571 through 585 (of 1,757 total)
  • The topic ‘FAR Study Group October November 2013 - Page 39’ is closed to new replies.