[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/

[jstay]

ill be here for Q2. failed in Q1. knew I did because I didn't put half as much effort as the others (I knew I had 4 chances left and as burnt from studying AUD). This time im treating REG like I did my first exam and obsessing over it. 4 chances left but I don't want it to come down to that

[Anonymous]

Howdy Jstay. I remember you from Q1 BEC. Did you get the pass for that one?

Good luck with REG round 2!

[Gabe]

Hey jstay! I know how ya feel…missed REG in Q1 too…now back with a vegeance in Q2! We can do this!

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

[jstay]

I know! and the worst part is I barely studied compared to the others and ended up with a 73… ugh!!!! heres to two more months of studying and never doing it after that!

anyone else working tax? im an intern so this is my first busy season…getting some good experience

[Gabe]

I studied a lot and freaked out on the SIMS…so my main plan is not to psych myself out 🙂

I did one tax busy season and that was enough for me. I find it interesting though. When do you plan on sitting?

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

[jstay]

mid may before, as close to the second release wave as possible so im thinking 5/12 5/13 somewhere around there.

[Svitlana85]

Failed Reg in Q1 (last exam), coming back with extra tenacity for Q2!

Silly question, when they say equipment placed into service for section 179, do they mean they bought it and using it or it broke and they are fixing it?

I know stupid, but I have to question every single thing now in order to pass.

Thanks guys and good luck to everyone!

CPA Excel/Wiley/Ninja Notes/MCQs

FAR Feb 2014 85
AUD Aug 2014 88
BEC Nov 2014 85
REG Feb 2015 71 Retake April 16, 2015

[Holly]

@svit they mean bought and using

BEC - 79
REG - 85
AUD - 5/27/16

[Anonymous]

That's one of the tricks I remember from my Tax 1 class. It doesn't matter when you bought the piece of equipment. For tax purposes, depreciation doesn't start to kick in until you actually start to use it (placed into service).

[Anonymous]

Hey guys will be joining you I'm thinking of taking the exam at the end of April. I just found out I passed BEC with an 83 I couldn't believe it! Pending NTS approval and prometric availability I'm aiming for probably April 20th. I want to start studying today 🙂 I took REG before and studied for 4 weeks +class+recruiting season+read the Becker book and did ninja mcq only and got a 69. So I know if I put it in the time for this exam without the other distractions I will pass 🙂

[OnlyBelieve]

Ed purchased an automobile for personal use at a cost of $10,000 which was totally destroyed by fire. His AGI is $200,000. The FMV of the automobile before the fire was $8000 and the FMV after the fire was $ 7000. How much can Ed take as a casualty loss without regard to AGI limitations?

AUD - DONE
BEC - DONE
REG - 04/04
FAR - 05/30

[Anonymous]

OnlyBelieve: Is the answer $900?

Normally it would be zero because of how the AGI is but we're throwing that away as per the instructions in the question. So it would be the change in FMV (8,000 – 7,000) and then you subtract an additonal 100 (used to eliminate frivilous losses from being reported as a deduction) for $900.

[No_one]

Officially joining REG Group. Super Happy…This is my last Section of CPA exam Process..

CA Candidate
FAR: You are down...
Aud: Surprised me...Thanks
BEC: 75% work done
REG: It's 80 but I am 100% done 🙂

[OnlyBelieve]

Angel- I think the $100 comes into play when you are considering the AGI limitation rule. So without regard to AGI limitation, the answer is $1,000(8000-7000). i.e. the lesser of adjusted basis or the difference in decrease in FMV before and after the loss.

AUD - DONE
BEC - DONE
REG - 04/04
FAR - 05/30

[Anonymous]

OnlyBelieve: That makes sense but if I had that question on an exam in class, I'd have fought the professor on it.

In my mind the AGI limitation and the $100 reducation are two separete events. The AGI limitation is the “Robin Hood” rule that Becker likes to call it. It's there to prevent the super wealthy from getting too many deductions. The $100 reduction is to prevent people from claiming frivilous losses as itemized deductions (i.e. Oh noes! My coffee cup broked! I'll be taking a $5 deduction for that!).

[Author]

Replies