- This topic has 3,544 replies, 143 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
falizadeh.
-
CreatorTopic
-
March 5, 2015 at 8:08 pm #192517
-
AuthorReplies
-
May 28, 2015 at 1:54 am #680484
AnonymousInactiveAnyone ever had a real life research tab where it asks you to find the paragraph of the code and not just the section/subsection? Ninja asked me for that twice on one test; it threw me off and my exam rehearsal went from what would have been an 86 to a 71.
Also did anyone else notice that the practice research tab NASBA posts are wrong? At least for FAR and REG. I emailed them to get it fixed and they sent me jumping through hoop after hoop after hoop, so I gave up.
May 28, 2015 at 1:59 am #680485
AnonymousInactivecoloradorit, as I said, your posts are delayed, that's why it probably feels like we are ignoring you 🙂
May 28, 2015 at 2:02 am #680486
No_oneMember@Meddik Can you please explain what you mean, when you say that if we take entire 2500/- as gross income it means we took 3500/- last year itemized deduction.
Sorry, but dont understand whats going on there…
and why we add in last example entire 1000/-?
CA Candidate
FAR: You are down...
Aud: Surprised me...Thanks
BEC: 75% work done
REG: It's 80 but I am 100% done 🙂May 28, 2015 at 2:09 am #680487
AnonymousInactiveI feel like in one of the previous question they were allocating land and and computer, and one of them was at FMV? Do they just use lower one?
Also, I didn't realize they were allocating the excess only (9000), I thought 21000*(10/30) and 21000*(20/30). Is there a difference?
so it's established now that basis of the inventory is used for distribution and liquidation, but fmv for sale of partnership interest
Thanks for posting and formatting!
May 28, 2015 at 2:14 am #680488
AnonymousInactiveMay 28, 2015 at 2:15 am #680489
willpassby2014Member@coloradorit…This is how i calculated.
39000- 3000-15000( Hot assets )= We are left with 21000
Now 10000/30000*21000 and 20000/30000*21000 is the basis left for the 2 parcel of lands .
Thanks for posting.
BEC Passed
FAR Passed
AUD Passed
REG PassedMay 28, 2015 at 2:16 am #680490
No_oneMemberSorry guys I missed many posts looks like some delay/tech glitch..
CA Candidate
FAR: You are down...
Aud: Surprised me...Thanks
BEC: 75% work done
REG: It's 80 but I am 100% done 🙂May 28, 2015 at 2:18 am #680491
willpassby2014MemberParent sold stock with cost of 8000 to their child for 6000., its fmv. after 6 months child sold it for 7000 to unrelated party. what is proper treatment of this transaction. How much gain or loss parent did parent recognize and how much gain did child recognize
BEC Passed
FAR Passed
AUD Passed
REG PassedMay 28, 2015 at 2:22 am #680492
AnonymousInactive0; 0?
May 28, 2015 at 2:37 am #680493
MeddikMemberI think the parent is 0, and the child will recognize a loss of $1,000.
Parent sells to related party, no G/L. But there is a built in loss on the item of $2,000 now, so that when it eventually is sold to an unrelated party, the loss of $2,000 is recognized.
What I mean is that you only include the state tax refund in your gross income if it is in excess of the standard deduction.
You would have had $3,950 deductible from the standard deduction, no matter what. So if you paid 6k in taxes last year and received a 2.5k refund, you are down to $3,500 (now less than the std deduction amount). The government would give you that $450 (3950 – 3500) amount tax free anyway had you used a standard deduction. So they let you have that and only charge you the excess amount of $2,050 (6000-3950).
If you had paid 6k taxes and only got a refund of $1,000, now you're at $5,000 (6000-1000). You are above the std deduction, so you include all $1,000 in your gross income. Because the itemized deductions still gave you a $5,000 deduction instead of the lower std deduction of $3,950.
Basically, if your refund puts you in a position where your std deduction would have been better than your itemized amount, you will not be including the full amount of the refund in gross income. Only the tax that you benefited from, by deducting it last year (hence tax benefit rule).
FAR - 86
REG - 83
AUD - 97
BEC -May 28, 2015 at 2:39 am #680494
AnonymousInactivewhere is logic here? what makes cost of rent – just damages, and lost profit – special damages?
The Johnson Corporation sent its only pump to the manufacturer to be repaired. It engaged Travis, a local trucking company, to deliver the pump and to redeliver it to Johnson promptly upon completion of the repair. Travis did not know that Johnson’s entire plant was inoperative without the pump. Travis delayed several days in returning the repaired pump. During the time it expected to be without the pump, Johnson incurred $5,000 in lost profits. At the end of that time, Johnson rented a replacement pump at $200 per day. What is Johnson entitled to recover from Travis?
A. The $200-a-day cost incurred in renting the pump.
Answer (A) is correct.
The failure of Travis to perform with reasonable promptness was a breach of contract for which Johnson could recover monetary damages. Johnson may recover its general damages, which were those likely and foreseeable as a result of the breach (the pump rental costs).
B. Nothing because Travis is not liable for damages.
C. The $200-a-day cost incurred in renting the pump plus the lost profits.
Answer (C) is incorrect.
Special damages, those flowing from some unique aspect of the case, are recoverable only if the defendant knew or should have known at the time of contracting of the possibility of their incurrence. By not informing Travis that the plant would be inoperative without the pump, Johnson was precluded from recovering lost profits.
D. Actual damages plus punitive damages.
May 28, 2015 at 2:43 am #680495
AnonymousInactiveI have love–hate relationship with gleim
May 28, 2015 at 2:49 am #680496
MeddikMemberAnjajna, I believe that since Travis didn't know of the urgency of the pump he is not liable for the lost profits because it was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his breach of contract. So by special they mean not reasonably foreseeable.
However, he did delay the delivery despite being engaged to “promptly deliver it after repairs were made.” He failed to do so. Johnson Corporation took the necessary measures to mitigate the loss of profits, by renting the pump at $200 per day. One may recover the damages if they took reasonable steps to mitigate the loss once breach of contract occurred.
Had Travis known of the importance of the pump, he would have been liable for profits as well…I think…because it would have been a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of his breaching the contract.
FAR - 86
REG - 83
AUD - 97
BEC -May 28, 2015 at 2:57 am #680497
AnonymousInactiveMeddik,
right, but based on this logic (Travis didn't and couldn't know of the importance of the pump) why does he even have to pay rent? If the need of pump is not foreseeable, why recover rent, if it is foreseeable, why not recover losses
May 28, 2015 at 2:58 am #680498
AnonymousInactivei guess it's just one of those questions
-
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘REG Study Group Q2 2015 - Page 218’ is closed to new replies.
