REG Study Group Q1 2017 - Page 6

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #1396511
    jeff
    Keymaster

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

Viewing 15 replies - 76 through 90 (of 1,482 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #1398764
    aatoural
    Participant

    @JMG – Yeah the answer is C. But about your question. If X and Y are filling a consolidated statement, I don;t think the questions gives us that much detail. We don't know for sure that the taxable income of Y of $140 includes the $10K dividends. At least that is from reading the problem a few times.

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

    #1398771
    aatoural
    Participant

    @dtatham10 – I think know which are f=refundable and which are not and the major issues with them should suffice.

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

    #1398777
    JMG
    Participant

    @aatoural thanks for the follow up, it wasn't clicking initially because I never read anything in the Becker book on DRD imnpact on taxable loss. Still not clear on why the elimination of the dividend increases the loss.

    #1398809
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    Speaking of DRD, I haven't cycled back through that material. But there is some rule. I believe you cannot take a DRD if it causes you to go from a profit to a loss–am I making this up?

    JMG, what's not clicking? I'm trying to figure out how I can explain it better. If you have a loss and received dividend income you would reduce that loss by the dividend. If that dividend is eliminated then you are back to the original loss amount.

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

    #1398833
    RE2PECT
    Participant

    @dtatham10- Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I just had this question come up. In this situation you're allowed to take the full DRD as opposed to using the taxable income limitation. Sorry if the formatting is a little messed up.

    During 2016, Sea Corporation reported gross income from operations of $100,000 and operating expenses of $150,000. Sea Corporation also received dividend income of $90,000 from a domestic corporation in which Sea is a 20% shareholder. What is the amount of Sea Corporation’s net operating loss?
    A. $40,000
    B. $23,000
    C. $0
    D. $32,000
    Answer (D) is correct.

    Sec. 172(c) defines a net operating loss as the excess of deductions over gross income, with certain modifications. One modification is that the dividends-received deduction is computed without regard to the 80% of taxable income limitation (i.e., $40,000 × 80% = $32,000 deduction limit) in Sec. 246(b); therefore, the deduction is the full amount of $72,000. Thus, Sea’s NOL is $32,000 as computed below.
    Gross income from operations
    $100,000
    Dividend income
    90,000
    Less: Operating expenses
    (150,000)
    Gross income
    $ 40,000
    Less: Dividends-received deduction
    (80% Ă— $90,000)
    (72,000)
    Net operating loss
    $ (32,000)

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

    #1398837
    JMG
    Participant

    @dtatham10 you're thinking of the exception to the taxable income limitation rule for DRD if it results in a NOL.

    For that problem I think I'm just having a hard time with the wording, because it says the dividend was “included” in the loss. So just explain to me how we get from (120K) to (130K) with the dividend being eliminated.

    #1398857
    JMG
    Participant

    Nevermind, I just answered my own question lol

    #1398860
    LIZZ
    Participant

    @ JMG there are 3 companies in the question. Maybe thats where your lost?

    1.Parent X – Owns 100% of Sub Y.
    2.Sub Y owns 20% of some other company as a stock investment.

    the question tells you that DRD is not calculated in NI for either company so DRD needs to be deducted.

    1. Parent X elimated 100% of Sub Y Dividends. SO NI 120 less 10k DRD = 130K for Parent
    2. Sub Y owns 20% of stock investment = 70% DRD. 30k divd x 70% = 21,000 elimination allowance. NI = 140 – 21k = 119 for Sub

    Consolidated is
    (130) Parent
    119 Sub
    ——–
    11k Consolidated NI

    The Question AGAIN:
    Parent company X and subsidiary company Y file a calendar-year consolidated federal income tax return. Company X reported a $120,000 tax loss, which included a $10,000 dividend from Y. Company Y reported $140,000 of taxable income, which included $30,000 of dividends received from less than 20%-owned stock investments. Neither company took into account any applicable dividends-received deduction. What is the group’s consolidated tax loss for the year?

    Hope that Helps = )

    FAR - 05/2015
    AUD - 75,11/2014
    REG - 07/2015
    BEC - 09/2015

    #1398863
    LIZZ
    Participant

    Ok now im lost on the DRD %. does anyone remember them from FAR?

    Owns = Eliminated
    less than 20% – 80%?
    20% – 80% = 70% ?
    Over 80% = 100%

    I thought the max elimination was 70% but at @Re2pect question it says 80%.

    FAR - 05/2015
    AUD - 75,11/2014
    REG - 07/2015
    BEC - 09/2015

    #1398893
    JMG
    Participant

    @financelady thanks for the help, my brain fart was telling me “eliminated” = zero, instead of eliminated = (10K) so that's where I was confused.

    #1398896
    aatoural
    Participant

    @JMG – the problem is meant to trick your math it is a loss of 120 which includes the 10 dividend. If we take out the dividend it will look like this: -120 – 10 = -130 that netted against the 140 – 21 = 119 which ends up at 119 – 130 = -11



    @financelady

    less than 20% -> 70% DRD
    20-80% -> 80% DRD
    80% and more -> 100% DRD meaning no dividend income from affiliated companies

    Not to confuse with GAAP which only requires 50% for consolidation.

    Hope this helps.

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

    #1398899
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    @JMG ok can you or anyone elaborate on your comment. The example problem @re2pect posted makes me think you can take the full DRD even if it reduces your income to a loss.

    “you’re thinking of the exception to the taxable income limitation rule for DRD if it results in a NOL.”

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

    #1398912
    LIZZ
    Participant

    THANKS @aatoural I knew there was something wrong.. Starts at 70% and goes up to 100% !

    FAR - 05/2015
    AUD - 75,11/2014
    REG - 07/2015
    BEC - 09/2015

    #1398918
    JMG
    Participant

    @dtatham10 I'm just paraphrasing from the Becker book here, but:

    DRD = lesser of:
    – 70-80% dividends received
    – 70-80% taxable income (w/out DRD, NOL deduction, cap loss carryback, or DPA deduction)

    Exception:
    Taxable income limitation does not apply if the result of the DRD is a NOL

    There's a really good example of this in the book, wish I could post it up here.

    #1398921
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    ahhh Taxable income! I'll have to take a look when I get home. What page is it in Becker?

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

Viewing 15 replies - 76 through 90 (of 1,482 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group Q1 2017 - Page 6’ is closed to new replies.