- This topic has 1,482 replies, 126 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
tmjcpa.
-
CreatorTopic
-
December 19, 2016 at 6:25 pm #1396511
jeff
KeymasterWelcome to the Q1 2017 CPA Exam Study Group for REG. 🙂
-
AuthorReplies
-
December 28, 2016 at 9:32 pm #1402047
Namstut
Participant@re2pect and @dtatham10 – I think I need to stay away from this group for a while, you guys are probably contagious! I hope you both are feeling better soon!
AUD 7/6/16 Passed
BEC 9/3/16
FAR TBD
REG TBDDecember 28, 2016 at 9:33 pm #1402050Namstut
Participant@Gak Yasa, I am not familiar with Gleim but many on this board swear by them. I use Becker and I think Becker does a good job preparing you for the actual exam.
AUD 7/6/16 Passed
BEC 9/3/16
FAR TBD
REG TBDDecember 29, 2016 at 12:09 am #1402127Teal
ParticipantHi! Can anyone tell me how much we need to know about secured transactions? Like are you all remembering all the rules and exceptions to the rules and then exceptions to the exceptions for who has priority as the creditor/secured party? It seems nuts! There are so many!
FAR (66,68) Aug 26
REG (66) July 25
AUD (66) December 1st
BEC - October 3rdDecember 29, 2016 at 5:37 am #1402181LIZZ
ParticipantCan a Becker Sim answer be wrong? Because of this blog I am taking the time to practice the Research SIMS and they are hard to find.
The Question :
What code section and subsection explains why the Taxpayer cannot deduct his contributions to his national political party.
Becker Answer:
IRC Section 162(e)
This section is related to “trade or business expenses”.
(e) Denial of deduction for certain lobbying and political expendituresI cant find anything in the tax code besides the about that says they are not deductible but this section is related to business expenses not individual taxes. Am i reading to much into it?
FAR - 05/2015
AUD - 75,11/2014
REG - 07/2015
BEC - 09/2015December 29, 2016 at 8:34 am #1402197JMG
ParticipantMel purchased 100 shares of common stock in X Corporation for $1,000. X distributed a nontaxable stock dividend and Mel received 20 shares of preferred stock as a result. On the date of the dividend, the common stock had a value of $19 per share and the preferred had a value of $5 per share. After the distribution of the preferred stock, Mel's bases for the stock held in X Corporation are:
A.$1,000 common and $0 preferred.
B.$950 common and $50 preferred. Correct
C.$830 common and $170 preferred.
D.$792 common and $208 preferred.Explanation:
Because the stock dividend was nontaxable, the $1,000 original basis of Mel's common stock must be allocated between the common and preferred shares based on their relative fair market value. Common stock has a value of $1,900 (100 × $19) and preferred has a value of $100 (20 × $5). $1,000 × (1,900 ÷ 2,000) = $950 basis of the common stock. $1,000 × (100 ÷ 2,000) = $50 basis of the preferred stock.So first of all, first time I noticed a Ninja typo (bases?) lol. Secondly, I'm probably just missing the obvious here but in the explanation, where is the 2,000 coming from?
December 29, 2016 at 8:53 am #1402211Namstut
Participant@jmg it's the sum of the values of preferred and common stock (1,900+100) to calculate the ratio of each type of stock in the distribution to them apply this ratio to the existing stock basis.
I found several typos in Becker. Funny to see those, considering the fact they cost an insane amount of money, someone should be proofreading the material.
AUD 7/6/16 Passed
BEC 9/3/16
FAR TBD
REG TBDDecember 29, 2016 at 8:58 am #1402215Namstut
Participant@lizz I don't think the question implies that the taxpayer is an individual.
Some of these research SIMs are annoying. I spent 30 min last night looking for the answer to the final exam practice #1 research testlet.
AUD 7/6/16 Passed
BEC 9/3/16
FAR TBD
REG TBDDecember 29, 2016 at 9:25 am #1402221December 29, 2016 at 9:54 am #1402232TXJAM
ParticipantDoes anyone have any recommendations for a watered down B. Law summation? I feel the lectures are dragging.
December 29, 2016 at 11:05 am #1402271HoosierCPA
ParticipantLife insurance proceeds vs Life insurance Premiums of a corp:
Proceeds:
Rule: Proceeds from insurance on the death of an officer where the corporation is the beneficiary are not includible in the taxable income of a corporation
Premiums:
Rule: Premiums paid for insurance on an officer's life where the corporation is the owner and beneficiary of the policy are not deductible.
Rule: Group-term life insurance premiums paid on employees' lives, with the employees' dependents as owners and beneficiaries of the policies are considered to be a fringe benefit and would therefore be deductible by the corporation.
Typing this out for myself. Premiums/Proceeds where corp is beneficiary is neither included in income or deductible. Proceeds where corp isn't direct beneficiary is included in income!
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16December 29, 2016 at 12:52 pm #1402337Namstut
ParticipantJust moved my REG from January 2nd to January 7th. I do not feel confident and my MCQ and SIM results are inconsistent, the results are all over the place ranging from 70 to 90.
This will leave me with with almost 9 weeks to prep for FAR. Is it doable with a full time job and a memory of a fish (think of Dora from Nemo) 🙂
AUD 7/6/16 Passed
BEC 9/3/16
FAR TBD
REG TBDDecember 29, 2016 at 1:22 pm #1402364RE2PECT
Participant@Namstut- 9 weeks should be enough for FAR depending on how familiar you are with the material. I studied about that long, but I had just finished all my accounting classes right before that so the material was still somewhat fresh. I was also working full time and my wife had a baby 3 weeks before my exam so my study time took a hit after that. I don't work in accounting and have no prior experience so I was going off what I learned in school and what I studied from my review course.
FAR: 75 Roger & Ninja (notes/flashcards/audio/MCQ)
AUD: 73, 81
BEC: 71, retake 8/29
REG:December 29, 2016 at 3:36 pm #1402433Champhex
Participant@LIZZ – Trade = Sole Proprietor (Sole Trader) = no legal distinction between the owner and the business = Individual
Hope that makes sense.
FAR-PASS-10/26/15
AUD-PASS-05/21/16
REG
BECDecember 29, 2016 at 3:45 pm #1402446JMG
ParticipantNow I'm sure this is just a case of Becker not going into finer detail but with the Section 179 deduction, Becker says the deduction is disallowed if it causes a net loss.
However one of the Ninja questions said that the deduction will equal taxable income in that case and the excess can be carried over to the following year. So why does Becker say it's disallowed?
December 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm #1402620hasy
Participant@jack yassa
Nothing is close to the actual exam, but I believe Gleim is more challenging. But if you learn the concepts, no sim should be impossible.
Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved - Helen Keller
-
BEC 80 (10/23/15)
FAR 72 (4/2/15); 83 (7/11/16)
REG 52 (4/28/15)
AUD (9/9/16)Roger + NINJA MCQ + WTB
-
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘REG Study Group Q1 2017 - Page 15’ is closed to new replies.