- This topic has 2,393 replies, 160 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by
jordancole.
-
CreatorTopic
-
November 20, 2014 at 6:25 pm #190226
jeffKeymasterFree Study Planner, Notes, Audio, Flashcards: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/
Free CPA Exam Survival Guide: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-survival-guide/
-
AuthorReplies
-
January 29, 2015 at 9:47 pm #652321
AnonymousInactiveThere you go, I missed the buzz word again, LOL.
I pulled it up from Safari, clicked it, and automatically showed up on my iPhone screen. It's now one of my (permanent) favorite iCons on my iPhone. It did the same thing on my iPad.
January 29, 2015 at 10:46 pm #652322
TncincyParticipantGreat, ordering it today. Testing the end of Feb.
It begins with a 75
Been here too long as a cheerleader....ready to passJanuary 30, 2015 at 1:46 am #652323
AnonymousInactiveOwen's tax basis in Regal Partnership was $18,000 at the time Owen received a nonliquidating distribution of $3,000 cash and land with an adjusted basis of $7,000 to Regal and a fair market value of $9,000. Regal did not have unrealized receivables, appreciated inventory, or properties that had been contributed by its partners. Disregarding any income, loss, or any other partnership distribution for the year, what was Owen's tax basis in Regal after the distribution?
a. $8,000
b. $7,000
c. $6,000
d. $9,000
The correct answer is 8,000. How come the basis is not 7,000? I thought it is only limited to its adjusted basis.
January 30, 2015 at 2:57 am #652324
MissbotsMemberuse FMV for non-liquidating
January 30, 2015 at 3:08 am #652325
TargetCPAParticipantNon-liquidating distribution:
Owen's tax basis after distribution = $18,000-$3,000-$7,000 = $8,000
January 30, 2015 at 4:31 am #652326
MikaParticipant@ashleyNY, if your case is a LIQUIDATED distribution, the basis of the land will be 15,000. (18,000 – 3,000) as basis wont go beyond ZERO
REG - 80 (02/13/2015) Roger + Ninja Flash Card + Ninja MCQ + Becker's Note
FAR - 84 (05/29/2015) Roger + Ninja MCQ + Some Wiley book questions
BEC - 77 (08/27/2015) Roger + Ninja MCQ + Half Wiley book questions
AUD - 87 (08/28/2015) Roger + Ninja MCQ + Half Wiley book questionsJanuary 30, 2015 at 9:46 am #652327
thelonewolf527Member“Egan, a minor, contracted with Baker to purchase Baker's used computer for $400. The computer was purchased for Egan's personal use. The agreement provided that Egan would pay $200 down on delivery and $200 thirty days later. Egan took delivery and paid the $200 down payment. Twenty days later, the computer was damaged seriously as a result of Egan's negligence. Five days after the damage occurred and one day after Egan reached the age of majority, Egan attempted to disaffirm the contract with Baker. Egan will:”
The answer is “Be able to disaffirm despite the fact that Egan was not a minor at the time of disaffirmance”
Explanation being ” A minor has a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority to disaffirm contracts. One day after reaching majority is within a reasonable time, and so Egan could disaffirm.”
I am incredibly confused by this question and don't know if it's because I'm looking at it from a common sense perspective or not.
AUD - 08/04/14 - 83
FAR - 11/29/14 - 80
REG - 02/26/15 - 89
BEC - 05/30/15 - 86DONE!
January 30, 2015 at 1:10 pm #652328
MikaParticipantLiked-kind exchange problem
For BOOT, Should I
1) add cash + net debt relief OR
2) i only add cash + debt relief OR
3) in case where there are both cash / net debt relief, I only add cash as boot..
Thanks~~
REG - 80 (02/13/2015) Roger + Ninja Flash Card + Ninja MCQ + Becker's Note
FAR - 84 (05/29/2015) Roger + Ninja MCQ + Some Wiley book questions
BEC - 77 (08/27/2015) Roger + Ninja MCQ + Half Wiley book questions
AUD - 87 (08/28/2015) Roger + Ninja MCQ + Half Wiley book questionsJanuary 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm #652329
AnonymousInactiveThe law for contracts with minors is very straightforward. It's never safe to contract with them. The law always protects the minors. Once something unexpected things happen, or when they change their mind, the court of law would always favor them. Except of course with basic necessities like food, they cannot just change their mind and cancel the prior deals.
Last year, I sold a car to a 16-year old boy. I formed a contract of sale between his mother and me, not with the boy, regardless of the fact that it's the boy's money and he is the one going to use it. Well, I don't want to make a deal with minors, ever.
January 30, 2015 at 8:21 pm #652330
AnonymousInactiveHavent been here for a while been busy throughout the week studying. Have a little more than a week left until the exam. Im excited to get it over with, but nervous since its REG. Just went through business law and at first thought it was awful but after going through it again, i think i have the basic idea of each topic (hopefully the exam does not get too specific). As for tax, i feel like i forgot a lot of the stuff because of putting my focus on r6-r8 the past few days.
Luckily I just got a lot of wiley questions from a co-worker. My question is that it is the 2015 version and i do not know if this applies to the exam that i will be taking in 10 days. Can anyone confirm for me?
January 31, 2015 at 2:05 am #652331
TncincyParticipantJanuary 31, 2015 at 2:15 am #652332
AnonymousInactiveYou made me excited too!
LOL
January 31, 2015 at 2:22 am #652333
AnonymousInactiveKent Corp. is a calendar year accrual basis C corporation. In Year 1, Kent made a nonliquidating distribution of property with an adjusted basis of $150,000 and a fair market value of $200,000 to Reed, its sole shareholder.
The following information pertains to Kent:
Reed's basis in Kent stock at January 1, Year 1 500,000
Accumulated earnings and profits at January 1, Year 1 125,000
Current earnings and profits for Year 1 (from operations) 60,000
What was taxable as dividend income to Reed for Year 1?
a. $150,000
b. $200,000
c. $60,000
d. $185,000
Explanation
Choice “b” is correct. A dividend paid in property other than money is taxable to an individual taxpayer to the extent of the property's fair market value, but not in excess of the current and accumulated earnings and profits of the distributing corporation. In this case the fair market value of the dividend is $200,000. It is taxable to the extent that Kent
had current earnings ($60,000) plus accumulated earnings and profits ($125,000) plus any gain generated on the distribution itself ($50,000); thus the dividend is taxable to the extent of $200,000.
Where in the book does it say that? I am using Becker. I thought the answer is D. Basing it on the explanation, if the distribution is not property, then it would be D but if it property distribution then it would be its FMV?
January 31, 2015 at 2:49 am #652334
wmcpaMember@tncincy You should have received a separate email with your login and temporary password (i.e. different from this forum). You may want to check the spam folder just in case –
FAR: 83
REG: 69, 69, retake Q1 2015
AUD: Q2 2015
BEC: Q2 2015January 31, 2015 at 2:52 am #652335
TncincyParticipantok great.
It begins with a 75
Been here too long as a cheerleader....ready to pass -
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘REG Study Group Q1 2015 - Page 86’ is closed to new replies.
