REG Study Group Q1 2017 - Page 54

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #1396511
    jeff
    Keymaster

    Welcome to the Q1 2017 CPA Exam Study Group for REG. 🙂

Viewing 15 replies - 796 through 810 (of 1,482 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1444185
    aatoural
    Participant

    @dtatham – I have not seen that type of question either where less control than 80% the shareholder is given cash. But Becker SIM for C corp chapter has a very nice couple of them that touch up very well on it. If you go to the new versin should be R4 SIM 1. Questions 1 and 2.

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #1444188
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    @aa I'll check it out. For some reason partnership transactions come to me no problem. Corps however just don't stick. Doesn't matter how many times I look at the material!

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #1444196
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    @aa I wish on the 1st sim they would give you the calculation for all 4 shareholders so I can make sure I did them all correctly! I got the 2 shareholders correct they had listed.

    Gain Relized Gain Recognized Basis
    Jones 20,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00
    Mitchell 40,000.00 – 10,000.00
    Carey 20,000.00 – 30,000.00
    Gorman 20,000.00 20,000.00 50,000.00

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #1444202
    RE2PECT
    Participant

    @dtatham10- I have the same problem. I get tripped up on distributions and what reduces basis in corps and S corps. I'm starting to get a little better, but need to have that down cold before I take my exam. I remember doing Gleim mcq's and they had a question that asked about an OAA account for S corps and I had no idea what that was lol.

    FAR: 75 Roger & Ninja (notes/flashcards/audio/MCQ)
    AUD: 73, 81
    BEC: 71, retake 8/29
    REG:

    #1444347
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    A taxpayer is trading in an automobile used solely for business purposes for another automobile to be
    used in his business. The automobile originally cost $35,000 and he has taken $18,000 in
    depreciation. The old automobile is currently worth $20,000 and the new automobile the taxpayer
    wants in exchange is only worth $17,500. The other party agrees to give the taxpayer a trailer worth
    $3,500 in addition to the new auto, and the taxpayer agrees to pay $1,000 cash in addition to the
    tradein.
    What is the taxpayer's basis in the new automobile received?
    A. $14,500
    B. $17,000
    C. $17,500 — CORRECT
    D. $19,500

    Explanation:
    New basis = Adjusted basis of property given up + Gain recognized Boot received + Boot paid
    $17,000 + $3,000 $3,500 + $1,000 = $17,500

    **How do you know when to net the boot? –I said the recognized gain was 2,500 because I netted the trailer given and the boot paid.

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #1444386
    aatoural
    Participant

    dtat – you net when is liab assumed or net boot cash. There is a whole series (more than 10 questions) with the facts as this in Becker that touches every single scenario for like-kind exchanges.

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #1444412
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    @aa yeah I know what series of questions you are talking about. So even though both the trailer and the cash given are both “boot” they don't get netted because one is cash and the other is a trailer?

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #1444418
    Pawn Maker
    Participant

    Thank you for posting that! I have had a bunch of trouble with like kind exchanges and I think your problem has all of the elements in a single MCQ. I think I figured this one out, you do net the boot paid and received, but it is netted when you determine gain realized and when you determine basis in the new property. Boot is not netted when you determine gain recognized.

    FMV of New Property 17500
    FMV of Boot Received 3500
    = FMV of Property Received 21000
    (-)Basis in Old Property 17000
    (-) FMV of Boot Paid 1000
    Gain Realized 3000

    Gain recognized is lessor of gain realized or boot received = 3000

    Basis in Old Property 17000
    (-)Boot Received 3500
    (+)Gain Recognized 3000
    (+) Boot Paid 1000
    Basis in New Property 17500

    #1444580
    Claudia408
    Participant

    hey guys quick question… if a taxpayer is head of household with 3 dependents, then the personal exemption has to be 4? (the taxpayer + 3 dependents). it would not be less?

    BEC - 75 (3x)
    AUD - 78 (3x)
    REG - 67, 66, Aug 1
    FAR - 54, Sept 8

    #1444656
    aatoural
    Participant

    @dtat – yeah

    @Claudia – I believe it can be less but it depends the circumstances. For example lets say a mother with 3 kids. If mother allows the father of one of the kids to claim that child in his return then she can only have 3 exemptions because her other child has already been claimed. Noticed though that might be subject to other legal rules I believe.

    Sorry for this one @dtatham10 but I had to:

    Fact Pattern: Knox operates an electronics store as a sole proprietor. On April 5, Knox was involuntarily petitioned into bankruptcy under the liquidation provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. On April 20, a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed, and an order for relief was entered. Knox’s nonexempt property has been converted to cash, which is available to satisfy the claims and expenses presented in the right column as appropriate. The cash available for distribution includes the proceeds from the sale of the stereos.
    Claim by Dart Corp. (one of Knox’s suppliers) for computers ordered on April 6 and delivered to Knox on April 10
    $20,000
    Fee earned by the bankruptcy trustee
    15,000
    Claim by Boyd for a deposit given to Knox on April 1 for a computer Boyd purchased for personal use but that had not yet been received by Boyd
    1,500
    Claim by Noll Co. for the delivery of stereos to Knox on credit. The stereos were delivered on March 4, and a financing statement was properly filed on March 5. These stereos were sold by the trustee with Noll’s consent for $7,500, their fair market value
    5,000
    Fees earned by the attorneys for the bankruptcy estate
    10,000
    Claims by unsecured general creditors
    1,000

    Question: 20 What amount will be distributed to Boyd if the cash available for distribution is $50,800?
    A. $900
    B. $480
    C. $800
    D. $1,500

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #1444688
    George
    Participant

    I think my head is going to explode. My test in on 1/31 and I'm still getting buried by NINJA MCQ. Average 68% and trending 76%. However when I switch over to Becker I'm scoring ins like 80's. How's everyone else holding up on REG ?

    #1444691
    Pawn Maker
    Participant

    Freaking out…my test is on the 23rd. Good luck, I feel exactly the same…how does anyone ever get a 99 on this…it just doesn't seem possible to remember all of this and know every little qualification.



    @aa
    That one is a really nice problem…God help me if I get one like that on the exam…is it C?

    #1444709
    aatoural
    Participant

    pawn maker. I think you are good to go for Monday. Ye it is C. lol

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #1444728
    jordancole
    Participant

    Hey Guys,

    I'm having trouble getting the nuances with SE Tax…thought it was pretty straight forward then I ran into a problem which excluded the share of ordinary income from a partner in the SE Tax. They were only to include their guaranteed payment when figuring SE TAX.

    Upon further research, I stumbled onto the different rules pertaining to Limited partners and don't know what to think anymore…

    Does anybody have a sure-fire conclusion on a rule to apply for the exam?

    THANKS!!!

    #1444958
    Pawn Maker
    Participant

    @aa Thanks, I wish I felt ready lol Good luck to you on Monday as well!

    @Jordan do you have an example of the problem where ordinary income is not reported on the K-1? It is my understanding that it flows from the 1065 to the K-1, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is an exception I don't know about.

Viewing 15 replies - 796 through 810 (of 1,482 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group Q1 2017 - Page 54’ is closed to new replies.