- This topic has 1,757 replies, 131 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
FAR Study Group MCQ’s.
-
CreatorTopic
-
September 9, 2013 at 2:08 pm #180296
jeffKeymasterFAR Resources:
Free FAR Notes & Audio – https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan
FAR 10 Point Combo: https://www.another71.com/products-page/ten-point-combo
FAR Score Release: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-scores-results-release
-
AuthorReplies
-
September 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm #476495
MonirMemberI 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
September 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm #476563
MonirMemberI 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
September 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm #476497
NYCaccountantParticipant@ 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.September 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm #476565
NYCaccountantParticipant@ 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.September 24, 2013 at 2:27 pm #476499
MonirMember@NYC, Thx
September 24, 2013 at 2:27 pm #476567
MonirMember@NYC, Thx
September 24, 2013 at 6:08 pm #476501
AnonymousInactive@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.
September 24, 2013 at 6:08 pm #476569
AnonymousInactive@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.
September 25, 2013 at 1:49 am #476503
AnonymousInactiveThe 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.
September 25, 2013 at 1:49 am #476571
AnonymousInactiveThe 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.
September 25, 2013 at 2:17 am #476505
ZSRizviMember@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. π
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 ” π ” 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.
September 25, 2013 at 2:17 am #476573
ZSRizviMember@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. π
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 ” π ” 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.
September 25, 2013 at 3:33 am #476507
AnonymousInactive@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…
September 25, 2013 at 3:33 am #476575
AnonymousInactive@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…
September 25, 2013 at 3:59 am #476509
NYCaccountantParticipant@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. -
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘FAR Study Group October November 2013 - Page 39’ is closed to new replies.
