- 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
-
January 5, 2017 at 11:50 am #1423782
aatoural
Participantyeah it makes sense for FMV, but in reality look at it this way.
You bought a bike a a supper discount lets say 50 bucks but you decide it to resale it for 100 bucks. In the entire transaction you have a gain of 50 ( 50 bucks more in your pocket before anything had happened). All that is SP – cost(basis), not taking into account what the FMV of bike was.
Does that make sense?
BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBSJanuary 5, 2017 at 11:51 am #1423785cpaMD86
ParticipantFrom IRS website:
If the FMV is equal to or greater than the donor's adjusted basis, your basis is the donor's adjusted basis at the time you received the gift. If you received a gift after 1976, increase your basis by the part of the gift tax paid on it that is due to the net increase in value of the gift. To figure out the net increase in value or for other information on gifts received before 1977, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Also, for figuring gain or loss, you must increase or decrease your basis by any required adjustments to basis while you held the property.
FAR: 9/3
January 5, 2017 at 11:59 am #1423794HoosierCPA
Participant@aatoural I'm just going to chalk this one up as me maybe not fulling understanding the rules.
Your example makes perfect sense, but I'm more wondering about the one situation where you buy at a super discount and then proceed to sell even below what you purchased it for. Your example is selling above what you bought it–so I understand that.
I just don't understand why you can buy at 50 bucks, and lets say the fmv was 100 bucks, and then later sell for 20 bucks and you are entitled to a realized loss of 80 bucks. That may not be a great example, not sure if you can take the full loss since its basis isn't even 80..lets not open up another can of worms lol! But thats the general idea of the one scenario that baffles me.
I know a similar concept with estate tax but with estate tax it makes sense to me because the estate pays the tax on the markup from basis to fmv…so they would pay taxes on the 50 buck increase in value at the time of transaction (100-50). So at the point of an estate transaction they donor gets the fmv as their basis and can take whatever loss they incur on the sale.
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16January 5, 2017 at 12:04 pm #1423797aatoural
ParticipantIn that case you can because you bought it so no rollover basis your basis becomes the FMV at date of purchase. If you sell it for 20 then you realized a loss of 80.
The ohter examples are just for gifted property. Different rules apply.
BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBSJanuary 5, 2017 at 12:04 pm #1423799RE2PECT
ParticipantAwesome! Thanks aatoural! I have a 2014 version of Becker on pdf somewhere, but never bothered looking through it because I don't want the different numbers to confuse me.
FAR: 75 Roger & Ninja (notes/flashcards/audio/MCQ)
AUD: 73, 81
BEC: 71, retake 8/29
REG:January 5, 2017 at 12:08 pm #1423805HoosierCPA
ParticipantI think I”ve gotten to a point of confusing myself and most likely others on here. I will just drop it lol.
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16January 5, 2017 at 12:11 pm #1423809aatoural
Participantwelcome re2pect
BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBSJanuary 5, 2017 at 12:12 pm #1423811aatoural
Participantyeah now I am a bit confused too..hahahhaha
let's refresh from that topic and come back to it later on. 😉
BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBSJanuary 5, 2017 at 12:13 pm #1423814HoosierCPA
ParticipantAgreed!
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16January 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm #1423817cpaMD86
ParticipantLOL
I looked over Publication 551. Has some good information and examples in there as well…just fyi.FAR: 9/3
January 5, 2017 at 12:17 pm #1423820HoosierCPA
ParticipantOk I couldn't help myself! haha. @cpamd86 for your example you gave earlier. Would that even qualify for the gift basis rules? It appears to be an arms length transaction since they are selling above FMV? I would say the buyer would assume the basis of what they purchased it for and gain/loss would be calculated off that and FMV wouldn't factor into it? I copied a little piece from your post.
“Let’s say the Basis is 50 and FMV is 40
If you sell it for 60 then you calculate it using the c/o basis, so you would have a gain of 10. If you sell it for 30 then you use the FMV and would have a 10 loss. If you sell it for anything in between 50 and 40 no gain or loss…”
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16January 5, 2017 at 12:27 pm #1423826cpaMD86
ParticipantPer the lectures/detail I've covered, yes it would be gift basis…won't dig into it too much to avoid confusion LOL. Occam's razor, (keep it simple stupid)
Here's an example from the publication just in case in helps
Example. You received an acre of land as
a gift. At the time of the gift, the land had an
FMV of $8,000. The donor's adjusted basis was
$10,000. After you received the land, no events
occurred to increase or decrease your basis. If
you sell the land for $12,000, you will have a
$2,000 gain because you must use the donor's
adjusted basis ($10,000) at the time of the gift
as your basis to figure gain. If you sell the land
for $7,000, you will have a $1,000 loss because
you must use the FMV ($8,000) at the time of
the gift as your basis to figure a loss.
If the sales price is between $8,000 and
$10,000, you have neither gain nor loss. For instance,
if the sales price was $9,000 and you
tried to figure a gain using the donor's adjusted
basis ($10,000), you would get a $1,000 loss. If
you then tried to figure a loss using the FMV
($8,000), you would get a $1,000 gain.FAR: 9/3
January 5, 2017 at 12:41 pm #1423838HoosierCPA
Participantding ding ding. I figured out what's going on here. I'm talking about related party transactions. I thought the technical term of the original parties basis was called the “gift basis” which thew EVERYONE off and they are talking about gifting property to someone 100% free.
I actually just found a page in becker and it confirmed what I've been saying if you sell lower then the purchase price is the basis you use to determine the loss.
I'm taking all the blame for this confusion–had I said related party transactions right from the beginning everyone would have been like “oh yeah, you're an idiot–you are talking about 2 completely different concepts here!”
So 2 different situations…you sell at a loss for gift purposes the FMV is taken, you sell at a loss for related parties the purchase price is used NOT the FMV
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16January 5, 2017 at 12:50 pm #1423848aatoural
Participantdtat – do GLEIM mcqs under property topic – related party sales (12 questions) it will help you solidify.
BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBSJanuary 5, 2017 at 12:53 pm #1423895HoosierCPA
Participant@aatoural I'm not even sure where mcq's are located in my gleim software. I have looked for them over and over and I can only find the sims. I've never been super interested in doing them but if I paid the money I feel like I should be able to at least glance at them!
**can you screen shot where yours are located, I'm thinking they may have screwed up and not give me access to everything, they never even sent me a book**
FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16 -
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘REG Study Group Q1 2017 - Page 29’ is closed to new replies.