REG Study Group Q1 2015 - Page 44

Viewing 15 replies - 646 through 660 (of 2,393 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #651690
    leglock
    Participant

    There r two ways to calc the basis. One is as u mentioned using fmv and the other is using basis

    Id recommend knowing both as i beleive inran into a problem where i needed the formula using basis bc not enuff info was given to use the fmv formula

    #651691
    funtiks
    Participant

    did you use becker?

    where is the other formula? that the only one they have for like kind exchange

    Doing the MCQs I feel like becker did shit job on this section…. have to read the chapter in willey now…..

    FAR - 76*, 73, 85
    BEC - 69, 72, 78*, 80
    AUD - 72, 71, 90
    REG - 71, 74, 85

    AFTER 3 YEARS I'M DONE!!!

    #651692
    s2sylvir
    Member

    @funtiks

    You are actually right, but I think you missed the last part of the formula adding deferred loss: “FMV – Deferred Gain + Deferred Loss”

    To be sure, I redid the math since I'm starting to doubt myself too after crazy REG study sessions…. Here goes……

    The gain/loss realized is the Amount realized – NBV + Boot Received

    10,000 – 20,000 + 3,000 = Loss of $7,000

    Per the rules, loss is never recognized, so it is deferred.

    We now swing back around to the tax basis of the new property being “FMV – Deferred Gain + Deferred Loss”

    10,000 – 0 + 7,000 = $17,000 basis of new property…

    Check R4-19, the example for “Like-Kind Exchange: Realized Loss”

    Hope this helps!

    BEC - PASS (79)
    AUD - PASS (63, 71, 74, 74, 83)
    REG - PASS (88)
    FAR - PASS (58, 89)

    Becker for all + FAR 10 Point Combo

    #651693
    funtiks
    Participant

    thanks, I guess i didnt think about differed loss.

    I really hope i dont get a long ass SIM on this bullshit topic

    FAR - 76*, 73, 85
    BEC - 69, 72, 78*, 80
    AUD - 72, 71, 90
    REG - 71, 74, 85

    AFTER 3 YEARS I'M DONE!!!

    #651694
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hi guys..can any one tell me is there any negative marking in the exam and how's the score being calculated ?

    #651695
    The_AmYam
    Member

    sorry was offline for a few days, home with a sick kid (again!)

    gabe – do you have access to the Wiley MCQ bank online? If so, there are GREAT AMT questions in Individual/Corporate on there. I really did not understand AMT until I did Wiley. I only asked how much you knew it because for me, knowing it was the difference in my 1st and 2nd exam results. 😉 i can post something a little longer later about AMT calcs (will be later tonight – have to catch up at work after being out 2 days)

    I made a flash card w/ all the 1933/1934 act liability on it. I put the section (11, 12, 10b5, 17, 18) on the left, with a general LAM, FAIDS, no reliance/scienter, then out to the right what act it relates to. Seems to work well. The biggest thing to remember in the securities section is that 1933 is IPO/who needs to register/Reg D, and then with 1934 it mostly covers reporting requirements and continuing anti-fraud provisions. sometimes if you don't know an answer, just remember that 1934 is reporting will help you narrow down your answer pool and pick the right one.

    step73121 – use Wiley MCQ's on the tax pieces to check what you know/don't know. if you're scoring low there, review those areas hard. Wiley BLAW questions are a lot different than Becker. I think being able to address both won't hurt you.

    funtiks – I broke the formula down like this to remember it and it seems to help :

    FMV New

    (basis old)

    (boot given)

    + boot received

    = realized gain/loss

    recognized = compare total to last line, take lesser of the two (this is why I put boot rec'd last)

    then everything that you need for your new basis calc is listed pretty much in order so you can easily add for your new basis. EVERY time I do these questions, I write out all of the above. Just remember when the “boot” is liabilities assumed for both parties, you need to look at the net of the two for your “net boot received” for your recognized gain

    REG - 81
    FAR - 79
    AUD - 94
    BEC - OCT 15

    #651696
    Gabe
    Participant

    @the_amyam Thanks! I do not have access to Wiley and I feel like Becker and Ninja kinda dropped the ball. Anymore info or notes would be greatly appreciated! I am writing down the things you posted now 🙂

    CPA, CFE
    CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

    #651697
    The_AmYam
    Member

    yeah tonight I'm going to back at my office studying – i will post AMT-related questions here so you can learn the calc's/questions that you may be asked. i'll be hitting that hard this weekend.

    REG - 81
    FAR - 79
    AUD - 94
    BEC - OCT 15

    #651698
    Gabe
    Participant

    @theamyam thanks! I look forward to it! I'll be on and off all weekend…mostly here in the afternoon

    CPA, CFE
    CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

    #651699
    Gabe
    Participant

    Anyone care to refresh me on the rules for deductions of IRA contributions?

    $5k

    Phaseout= $193 AGI?

    I keep getting all these questions about 2 spouses, 1 works, 1 doesn't, they both contribute. How much can they deduct?

    CPA, CFE
    CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

    #651700
    omalloy
    Member

    FAR 65, 70, 78
    REG 64, 76
    BEC 70, 80
    AUD 81

    Ethics 96

    Péter un plomb

    #651701
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Curry's adjusted basis in Vantage Partnership was $5,000 at the time he received a nonliquidating distribution of land. The land had an adjusted basis of $6,000 and a fair market value of $9,000 to Vantage. What was the amount of Curry's basis in the land?

    A.

    $9,000

    B.

    $6,000

    C.

    $5,000

    Incorrect D.

    $1,000

    I must be tripping. Answer says the basis should be $5000. Shouldn't the distribution of the land reduce Curry's basis to $0 with $1000 left over attributed to the land? Or maybe that's for a liquidating distribution? :/

    #651702
    omalloy
    Member

    The question is asking for the basis of property (land), which is same as the land's adjusted basis to the partnership* $6,000, but is limited to the Curry's interest in the partnership $5,000.

    *https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/732

    FAR 65, 70, 78
    REG 64, 76
    BEC 70, 80
    AUD 81

    Ethics 96

    Péter un plomb

    #651703
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    can any one tell me is there any negative marking in the exam and how's the score being calculated ?

    #651704
    Gabe
    Participant
Viewing 15 replies - 646 through 660 (of 2,393 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group Q1 2015 - Page 44’ is closed to new replies.