[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

[Anonymous]

I think we should post more “just a reminder” things… It's easy to forget the little details.

@dpd thanks!! that's a stretch but it does help I'll write it down lol

@trin it's ok if your behind just get back in the game. You got this!

[Anonymous]

Just a reminder: INTRAstate securities offering are exempt from the registration requirements of the Sec. Act of 1933. Also, these exempt shares may not be resold to investors outside the state for 9 months.

[ShmeePA]

REG at the end of the month! Let's attack!!!!

BEC-84
FAR-86
AUD-87
REG-79

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I reviewed r5 last night and wrote out the different requirements for negligence, fraud, sec. 11 and sec. 10b, different courts etc. And I did sooo much better on the mcq this time around. They are actually very straight forward once your able to distinguish the differences.

[Gabe]

I also recommend writing out all the differences. They are pretty straight forward. Once you have them all down, it makes the MCQs much easier to answer.

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[Anonymous]

Not sure who is being harassed in this question

A CPA working for a retail chain engages in harassment at her workplace. What ethical considerations, if any, may result from this practice?

Select an answer:

A.

The CPA is not in violation of any matter since ethical considerations, if any, apply only to discrimination matters.

B.

The CPA is responsible only to the federal government for any harassment activities, which do not relate to ethical issues.

C.

The CPA is responsible for any discrimination or harassment in employment activities.

D.

The CPA can only be responsible to the party involved.

[princeCPA]

@anjanja I think the question is not clear. But I would say C, that looks safe. Is the CPA is exterbnal or just employee of the Company?….

BEC 79
FAR 86
AUD 79
REG 90

[jstay]

that one is C, i think it kind of has to do with Audit and it goes with that a CPA still has to practice objectivity even if not in public.

This question and becker have different answers. Beckers is 200,000 and ninja is 185,000

Kent Corp. is a calendar-year, accrual-basis, C corporation. In 2014, Kent made a nonliquidating distribution of property with an adjusted basis of $150,000 and a fair market value of $200,000 to Reed, its sole shareholder. The following information pertains to Kent:

Reed's basis in Kent stock at January 1, 2014 $500,000

Accumulated earnings and profits at

January 1, 2014 125,000

Current earnings and profits for 2014

including the effects of this distribution 60,000

What was taxable as dividend income to Reed for 2014?

A.

$60,000

B.

$150,000

C.

$185,000

Incorrect D.

$200,000

[Anonymous]

I say 185

[jstay]

yeah me too, this morning in becker i chose 185 and was incorrect. so i saw this and knew 200,000 has to be right (just saw it in becker this morning so i figured it). But becker says that becuse the Corp realized a gain on the sale that an individual would recognize it up to the corps gain…or something..so confusing, test is friday…blah

[Anonymous]

because it say harassment at her workplace, I naturally assume since this is a female she must be the object of harassment, then why would she be liable. I am just narrow minded

[Anonymous]

I am finding it hard to differentiate positive versus negative adjustments to corporate E&P. A lot of it seems counterintuitive, and now that I'm three days from exam day, I don't know that I will make it a priority at this point. If anyone has thoughts or advice, please let me know!

[princeCPA]

I would say the answer is C. Do you have Becker's explanation?

BEC 79
FAR 86
AUD 79
REG 90

[Anonymous]

what's becker's explanation though, was it convincing? something with allocation I bet? they like allocating at becker and gleim

[Anonymous]

@jstay on p.44 R3 in Becker, the pass key describes this situation…took me forever to understand. That $60,000 of current E&P gets an addition of $50,000 due to the gain the corporation will have to recognize after the dividend. Thus, taxable dividend is the full $200,000, since total E&P just went up to $235,000 instead of $185,000.

That is confusing though, because the question states that the $60,000 current E&P “already includes the effects of this distribution.”

[Author]

Replies