[jeff]

Welcome to the Q2 2015 CPA Exam Study Group for REG.

“Death and Taxes” – Individual Tax for the CPA Exam

Posted by Another71 on Monday, November 24, 2014

Free NINJA: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/

Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

[jstay]

yes congrats! now, would any of you want to take REG for me??

[Anonymous]

Jstay: Not even for a million bucks. I never want to see a Prometrics site again as long as I live. 😉

[Anonymous]

Haha jstay good one! @angel and @gabe congrats guys I knew you were going to pass!! Enjoy your freedom! @jstay we got this next wave for sure. I'm so ready for this to be over! I'll b back here in a little to start studying.

[jstay]

@cpa8488 agreed! im 10 days out and getting pretty nervous

[Anonymous]

Question – Becker includes various examples of the IRS tax forms. Do you guys think it is important to know these? I know generally which “Schedules” are used for certain things, but otherwise, my knowledge is limited. Can't decide if it's something I should waste brain space on.

[Troblin]

I passed REG!! Now on to BEC. 🙂

A big thanks to the REG study group. You guys were a huge help in all those ridiculously tricky B LAW questions.

FAR: 85(11/22/2014) - Becker(full)/Ninja MCQ (5 day cram)
AUD: 79 (2/1/2015) -Becker/Ninja MCQ/Ninja Notes
REG: 84(4/19/2015) -Becker/Ninja MCQ/Ninja Notes
BEC: 83 (7/13/2015) -Becker/Ninja MCQ/Ninja Notes

Date I Got My Life Back!: 8/4/2015 🙂

[hunter32]

Who else here is in the 5/26 release? This wait is already killing me and will probably need a support group lol

BEC - 80 (Becker)
AUD - 92 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
FAR - 87 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
REG - 90 (Becker+NINJA MCQ and Audio)

[Tncincy]

Congrats to those that passed…it's nice to know that hard work will pay off. I guess I'll keep studying.

It begins with a 75
Been here too long as a cheerleader....ready to pass

[jstay]

yeah im getting worried that im not doing enough for this part

[Anonymous]

I'm in the next wave my exam is in 9 days and I don't feel prepared at all. I feel more prepared than I did the first time around just idk if it's enough for a 75. I'm looking at the “I passed reg” forum and I see only a few people post they passed. I'm wondering if not many people passed or just not many people posted? Hmmm

[Sandia]

@ hunter .. I am waiting for 5/27 too….I did my best on REG last week but I do not know, Sim was really hard and I hope remember all the expection and MCQ 1test easy, 2sd so hard, 3rd esasy. If I do not pass, I will take again in end of Agu.

Because I have to study x BEC anyway, I am taking a week off study to enjoy my kidos and my mother day….. I will be back to study next week for BEC. I will take in July.

Best luck to everyone and happy mother day for all mothers 🙂

WE CAN DO THIS!!!

FAR - 77 x2 Wiley book & no test bank
AUD - 83 x3 NINJA Test bank 3 time
REG - 80 x1 NINJA Test bank
BEC - 78 X2 NINJA Test bank ..done!!promesa cumplida mama -que llege al cielo 🙂
Ethic 100% Licensed VA CPA

[Anonymous]

I know this probably got lost with score releases:

I need clarification: what's the difference between gross negligence, constructive fraud, common law fraud and ordinary negligence? is this the bar exam or what! I've gotten so many questions wrong in R5 I”m starting to feel unethical and irresponsible! lol

[jstay]

@cpa8488, i saw that lol i meant to answer it but here goes

ordinary negligence: 4 things

1. defendant (accountant) owed duty of care

2. defendant breached that duty of care

3. that breach cause plaintiff injuries

4. damages

gross negligence (from what i gather this is the same as constructive fraud, so 2 with one stone)

uses the same elements as actual fraud (MAIDS) BUT WITHOUT Scienter – you only need to prove reckless disregard for truth, not intent

so here it goes,

1.misrepresentation of material fact

2. actual and justifiable reliance by plaintiff

3. intent to induce

4. Scienter (intent to deceive) – not needed for constructive/gross negligence

5. damages

Common law fraud- MAIDS

[Anonymous]

So the only difference between common law fraud and constructive fraud is former needs scienter and latter needs gross negligence or recklessness?

Is common law fraud the same as actual fraud?

[jstay]

pretty sure that actual and common law fraud are the same since they both use the MAIDS

constructive fraud = no scienter required, just a plain disregard for the truth. so we didnt intend to commit fraud but by not doing research on a topic we committed constructive fraud (we were grossly negligent in doing the return by not doing research)

[Author]

Replies