REG Study Group October November 2013 - Page 70

Viewing 15 replies - 1,036 through 1,050 (of 3,212 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #480278
    Kenada
    Member

    Did the answer say A was Ordinary Loss or Capital Loss ?

    I am wondering when did the stock become worthless. Was it before the father died or after? I think if it was before then the loss should be part of this estate.

    For Sec 1244

    1. Must be original holder of the stock

    2. Stock can be common or preferred

    3. Ordinary loss limit is 50,000.00 – Single or 100,000 Married

    Notes from IRS—-

    Worthless Securities

    Stocks, stock rights, and bonds (other than those held for sale by a securities dealer) that became completely worthless during the tax year are treated as though they were sold on the last day of the tax year. This affects whether your capital loss is long term or short term. See Holding Period , later.

    From IRS….

    Worthless securities also include securities that you abandon after March 12, 2008. To abandon a security, you must permanently surrender and relinquish all rights in the security and receive no consideration in exchange for it. All the facts and circumstances determine whether the transaction is properly characterized as an abandonment or other type of transaction, such as an actual sale or exchange, contribution to capital, dividend, or gift.

    If you are a cash basis taxpayer and make payments on a negotiable promissory note that you issued for stock that became worthless, you can deduct these payments as losses in the years you actually make the payments. Do not deduct them in the year the stock became worthless.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480254
    Qlad
    Member

    @insiyah….the question is exactly as i wrote…no more info…and at death of father FMV was 8000…

    FAR 72,71,81 πŸ™‚
    AUD 64,71, 72, 75 πŸ™‚ I'm done !!!
    REG 73, 74, 74, 84 πŸ™‚
    BEC 76 πŸ™‚

    #480280
    Qlad
    Member

    @insiyah….the question is exactly as i wrote…no more info…and at death of father FMV was 8000…

    FAR 72,71,81 πŸ™‚
    AUD 64,71, 72, 75 πŸ™‚ I'm done !!!
    REG 73, 74, 74, 84 πŸ™‚
    BEC 76 πŸ™‚

    #480256
    OCDisME
    Member

    @Qlad…was there any type of explanation as to why the answer was (8,000)? I have no clue if this is accurate or not, but maybe since the stock was an inheritance it could still qualify for the worthless stock “original owner” since it wasn't sold to someone else, it was a bequeathed.

    Was this a Becker or Wiley question?

    Becker Online - IL Candidate

    FAR: 85
    AUD: 85
    BEC: 78
    REG: 90

    #480282
    OCDisME
    Member

    @Qlad…was there any type of explanation as to why the answer was (8,000)? I have no clue if this is accurate or not, but maybe since the stock was an inheritance it could still qualify for the worthless stock “original owner” since it wasn't sold to someone else, it was a bequeathed.

    Was this a Becker or Wiley question?

    Becker Online - IL Candidate

    FAR: 85
    AUD: 85
    BEC: 78
    REG: 90

    #480258
    Kenada
    Member

    Hiya, I have a question for the group

    In which of the following situations does the first promise serve as a valid consideration for the second promise?

    a. A police Officer's promise to catch a thief for a victim's promise to pay a reward.

    b. A Builders promise to complete a contract for a purchasers promise to extend the time for completion

    c. A debtors promise to pay $ 500.00 for a creditors promise to forgive the balance of 600.00 liquidated debt

    d A debtors promise to pay 500.00 for a creditors promise to forgive the balance of a 600.00 disputed debt.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480284
    Kenada
    Member

    Hiya, I have a question for the group

    In which of the following situations does the first promise serve as a valid consideration for the second promise?

    a. A police Officer's promise to catch a thief for a victim's promise to pay a reward.

    b. A Builders promise to complete a contract for a purchasers promise to extend the time for completion

    c. A debtors promise to pay $ 500.00 for a creditors promise to forgive the balance of 600.00 liquidated debt

    d A debtors promise to pay 500.00 for a creditors promise to forgive the balance of a 600.00 disputed debt.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480260
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I say D because the debt disputed, so they are actually giving something up. I would not say C since the debt is already liquidated and there isn't exactly anything to give up anymore. Definitely not A since a police officer has a prior obligation.

    #480286
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I say D because the debt disputed, so they are actually giving something up. I would not say C since the debt is already liquidated and there isn't exactly anything to give up anymore. Definitely not A since a police officer has a prior obligation.

    #480262
    Kenada
    Member

    Oh ok so thats is why its D. I was split between C and D.

    So when I see Liquidated debt I should take that to mean its already been given up.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480288
    Kenada
    Member

    Oh ok so thats is why its D. I was split between C and D.

    So when I see Liquidated debt I should take that to mean its already been given up.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480263
    OCDisME
    Member

    @ insiyah24 I had this question and I believe the answer is D. Same explanation that Cupcake provided.

    Becker Online - IL Candidate

    FAR: 85
    AUD: 85
    BEC: 78
    REG: 90

    #480290
    OCDisME
    Member

    @ insiyah24 I had this question and I believe the answer is D. Same explanation that Cupcake provided.

    Becker Online - IL Candidate

    FAR: 85
    AUD: 85
    BEC: 78
    REG: 90

    #480265
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    That was my thinking through it. There may be another reason… But I remember seeing somewhere that disputed debt is consideration though.

    #480292
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    That was my thinking through it. There may be another reason… But I remember seeing somewhere that disputed debt is consideration though.

Viewing 15 replies - 1,036 through 1,050 (of 3,212 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group October November 2013 - Page 70’ is closed to new replies.