REG Study Group Q2 2015 - Page 62

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #192517
    jeff
    Keymaster

    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

Viewing 15 replies - 916 through 930 (of 3,544 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #678123
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Can someone help me with these two Becker cash flow questions? I am trying to understand why they added goodwill impairment in one problem but deducted it in another.

    PROBLEM 1:

    Twin House Inc. reported net income of $753,000 for the current year-ended December 31. Twin House's financial statements reflected the following information:

    Depreciation expense $ 150,000

    Gain on sale of trading securities 6,000

    Goodwill impairment 75,000

    Decrease in accounts receivable 48,000

    Increase in inventory 33,000

    Decrease in trading securities 50,000

    Increase in available-for-sale securities 62,000

    Increase in accounts payable 70,000

    Decrease in taxes payable 15,000

    Dividend paid 200,000

    Dividend received 27,000

    What should Twin House report as net cash provided by operating activities on the statement of cash flows, assuming that Twin House classifies the proceeds from the sale of the trading securities as an operating cash inflow?

    Answer: $1,092,000

    Explanation

    Net income $ 753,000

    Adjustments to reconcile net income to net

    cash provided by operating activities:

    Depreciation expense $ 150,000

    Goodwill impairment 75,000

    Gain on sale of trading securities (6,000)

    Changes in current assets and liabilities:

    Decrease in accounts receivable 48,000

    Increase in inventory (33,000)

    Decrease in trading securities 50,000

    Increase in accounts payable 70,000

    Decrease in taxes payable (15,000)

    Total Adjustments 339,000

    Net cash provided by operating activities $ 1,092,000

    PROBLEM 2:

    Reed Co.'s statement of cash flows reported cash provided from operating activities of $400,000. Depreciation of equipment was $190,000, impairment of goodwill was $5,000, and dividends paid on common stock were $100,000. In Reed's statement of cash flows, what amount was reported as net income?

    Explanation

    $205,000 is correct. Start with cash flows from operating activities and subtract depreciation and impairment expenses. Dividends paid are not included because dividends reduce retained earnings, not net income, and are included in cash flows from financing activities.

    Cash flows from operating activities $ 400,000

    Depreciation on equipment (190,000)

    Impairment of goodwill (5,000)

    Net Income $ 205,000

    #678124
    Gabe
    Member

    I think you'd have better luck in the FAR study group @erika

    AUD: 84
    BEC: 76
    FAR: 81
    REG: 4/3/15

    OK Candidate

    #678125
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @Gabe, sorry, posted in this forum by accident!

    #678126
    Gabe
    Member

    Allen owns 100 shares of Prime Corp., a publicly traded company, which Allen purchased on January 1, 2009, for $10,000. On January 1, 2014, Prime declared a 2-for-1 stock split when the fair market value (FMV) of the stock was $120 per share. Immediately following the split, the FMV of Prime stock was $62 per share. On February 1, 2014, Allen had his broker specifically sell the 100 shares of Prime stock received in the split when the FMV of the stock was $65 per share. What amount should Allen recognize as long-term capital gain income on his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2014?

    A.

    $300

    B.

    $750

    C.

    $1,500

    D.

    $2,000

    $10,000/100= $100/share

    2/1 split= $10,000/200= $50/share

    Sold @ $65/share= $6,500

    Basis for 100= 5,000 ($50*100)

    = $1,500

    Is my logic correct? Stock splits mess with me.

    AUD: 84
    BEC: 76
    FAR: 81
    REG: 4/3/15

    OK Candidate

    #678127
    Troblin
    Participant

    Haha.. that cash flow problem posted above was giving me flashbacks from the FAR exam. God that exam was a nightmare.

    @ Gabe thanks for the explanation on the stock basis question. Makes sense. I seem to get those questions confused as well.

    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 🙂

    #678128
    Gabe
    Member

    @troblin, yeah I saw that cash flow question and I swear the blood drained from my face..I think I am still traumatized from my FAR experience haha.

    As for stock splits…the only thing that changes in the number of shares. The value (in the case about $10k) remains the same. Someone mentioned that before and it helped me.

    AUD: 84
    BEC: 76
    FAR: 81
    REG: 4/3/15

    OK Candidate

    #678129
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Best thing to do with stock splits is to break down the cost of 1 share and work from there. It's easier for me to understand it that way.

    #678130
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Loving this Q2 REG forum. It's a constant progress review for me as I work my way through the material. Wish Gabe and Angelwatch weren't testing so early in the window because I will miss your questions and explanations (I'm sitting mid May). On the other hand I hope you two kill this section and wrap up this CPA exam madness. Good luck to the both of you!

    #678131
    Troblin
    Participant

    Can someone explain this question? I don't get it.

    Part agreed to act as Young's agent to sell Young's land. Part was instructed to disclose that Part was acting as an agent but not to disclose Young's identity. Part contracted with Rice for Rice to purchase the land. After Rice discovered Young's identity, Young refused to fulfill the contract. Who does Rice have a cause of action against?

    A.

    Part

    B.

    Young

    C.

    Both Part and Young

    D.

    Neither Part nor Young

    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 🙂

    #678132
    julietul
    Member

    @Troblin – The answer is C, both….When Young (the principal) refused to fulfil the contract…this is when Rice now has grounds to go after Principal. Found this prior conversation on this question. ….https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-forum/topic/why-are-principal-and-agent-liable.

    FAR - pass (expires 7/31/15)
    AUD - pass
    BEC - pass
    REG - April 20

    #678133
    Gabe
    Member

    Since the principal is partially disclosed (i.e. Rice knows Part is an agent), BOTH parties can be held liable once Young's identity is revealed.

    I believe, if Young was completely disclosed, then ONLY Young would be held liable once disclosed…can anyone back me up on that?

    edit: eh I was kind of right

    partially disclosed: BOTH the principal and the agent are liable to the third party

    undisclosed: the agent and principal are BOTH personally liable on the contract. However, the agent can identify the principal (unless there was an agreement of confidentiality) and the third party can choose to pursue the principal for any damages.

    AUD: 84
    BEC: 76
    FAR: 81
    REG: 4/3/15

    OK Candidate

    #678134
    Troblin
    Participant

    Thanks. I guess I'm having trouble discerning how the principal was partially disclosed based on the question above.

    What would distinguish partial disclosure of the principal vs full disclosure? Since the third party knew the identity of the principal after the contract was made wouldn't that be full disclosure? Or is full disclosure the designation of the principal prior to the contract agreement?

    Arghh… so confusing.

    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 🙂

    #678135
    Gabe
    Member

    “Part was instructed to disclose that Part was acting as an agent but not to disclose Young's identity”- partially disclosed

    When it is undisclosed, you don't say anything.

    check out the following made up example 🙂

    Undisclosed—>You are a super rich celebrity and you contract Bob to buy a house for you. You tell Bob t to act as if he's buying the house for himself. If the realtor knew that you were actually buying the house, you wouldn;t get a fair price, because they KNOW you make a lot of money and can afford to pay list price.

    Partially disclosed—>If it was partially disclosed- same situation- but Bob tells the realtor, “I am looking for a house for a client.”

    Full disclosure–> Hi I am Bob, I am looking to buy a house for mega rich Troblin.

    Does that help?

    AUD: 84
    BEC: 76
    FAR: 81
    REG: 4/3/15

    OK Candidate

    #678136
    Troblin
    Participant

    @Gabe. Thanks. That explanation helped tremendously. Think I got it.

    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 🙂

    #678137
    Troblin
    Participant

    Any thoughts on this question? Got it wrong in my MCQ and still am confused.

    Robb, a minor, executed a promissory note payable to bearer and delivered it to Dodsen in payment for a stereo system. Dodsen negotiated the note for value to Mellon by delivery alone and without indorsement. Mellon indorsed the note in blank and negotiated it to Bloom for value. Bloom's demand for payment was refused by Robb because the note was executed when Robb was a minor. Bloom gave prompt notice of Robb's default to Dodsen and Mellon. None of the holders of the note were aware of Robb's minority. Which of the following parties will be liable to Bloom?

    A.

    Dodsen

    B.

    Mellon

    C.

    Both Dodsen and Mellon

    D.

    Neither Dodsen nor Mellon

    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 🙂

Viewing 15 replies - 916 through 930 (of 3,544 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group Q2 2015 - Page 62’ is closed to new replies.