[jeff]

Welcome to the Q3 2016 CPA Exam Study Group for REG.

Some BLITZ videos to help your exams: https://www.another71.com/ninja-blitz

[Claudia408]

The IRC in the exam is not the same https://www.irc.gov right? How do we find the exact IRC that is on the test to browse?

BEC - 75 (3x)
AUD - 78 (3x)
REG - 67, 66, Aug 1
FAR - 54, Sept 8

[melody_pinaycpa]

Are funeral expenses and attorney's fees only deductible from gross estate if a waiver has been signed?

FAR (Apr 2015) - 88
AUD (July 2015) - 86
BEC (Oct 2015) - 82
REG - 73, 70, retake Sept 2016

[Anonymous]

CPADestined, all the questions i've seen will say something like, “disregarding the unified credit and estate tax consequences, what amount is taxable?” — which will be everything over $14k/$28k

and another thing to consider is you get an unlimited exclusion if you:

pay directly to an educational institution for a donee's tuition
pay directly to health care provider
make a charitable gift
make a gift to husband/wife (marital transfer)

[Spartans92]

Dale's distributive share of income from the calendar- year partnership of Dale & Eck was $50,000 in Year 1. On December 15, Year 1, Dale, who is a cash-basis taxpayer, received a $27,000 distribution of the partnership's Year 1 income, with the $23,000 balance paid to Dale in May Year 2. In addition, Dale received a $10,000 interest-free loan from the partnership in Year 1. This $10,000 is to be offset against Dale's share of Year 2 partnership income. What total amount of partnership income is taxable to Dale in Year 1?

Answer: 50,000 Why dont you add the 10k? I thought its an increase in liability so 60,000 would be the answer. Can someone explain. Thanks

BEC- PASS

[Claudia408]

Spartans – does the answer have anything to do with Dale being a cash basis tax payer? So his income is the distribution of 27+23 actively/constructively received in year 1?

BEC - 75 (3x)
AUD - 78 (3x)
REG - 67, 66, Aug 1
FAR - 54, Sept 8

[.]

From Ninja:

Wages paid for domestic services are subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes if they exceed $1,900 in a calendar year to one employee. Only those employees whose wages exceed $1,900 for the year are subject.

And:

Wages paid for domestic services are subject to federal unemployment tax if they exceed $1,000 per quarter, aggregating wages paid to all employees.

But:

Withholding federal income taxes for household employees is required only if requested by the employee and agreed to by the employer. Such withholding would be reported on Schedule H and filed with Form 1040.

So the employer only has to withhold social security and medicare taxes but not federal income taxes. Is that right?

FAR - June 2016 - 88
REG - July 2016 - 89
AUD - Aug 2016 - review phase currently
BEC - Sep 2016 -

Wiley CPA Excel & Ninja MCQ

[Spartans92]

Claudia, yes the answer states Choice “d” is correct. The total amount of partnership income taxable to Dale in Year 1 is $50,000, which is his distributive share of partnership income.
Rule: A partner must include his allocated share of partnership income, even if not received in cash, in his tax return for his taxable year (usually calendar year) within which the taxable year of the partnership ends.

I think i got the answer now.. I was thinking about basis the whole time, hence I thought the 10k was relevant. But since it is asking for taxable income it is irrelevant in this case.

BEC- PASS

[N2BCPA]

Among which of the following related parties are losses from sales and exchanges NOT recognized for tax purposes?

A.
Father-in-law and son-in-law

Incorrect B.
Brother-in-law and sister-in-law

C.
Grandfather and granddaughter

D.
Ancestors, lineal descendants, and all in-laws

Isn't a grandfather/granddaughter considered a lineal descendant? Why would they be disallowed? Wouldn't they fall under D? Someone please help me understand this. 🙁

This question is so confusing to me. This is Ninja's Answer

You answered B. The correct answer is C.

Losses from sales and exchanges between certain related parties are not recognized for tax purposes. Related parties are considered brother and sisters, half-brothers and half-sisters, spouses, ancestors (parents and grandparents), and lineal descendants. Relatives by marriage, or in-laws, are not considered related parties for tax purposes.

REG 07/2016....ROGER/NINJA AUDIO/MCQ/NOTES--62, retake 10/1
BEC
FAR
AUD

"A PART OF BEING A BEAST JUST AINT EATING A GAZELLE; A PART OF BEING A BEAST IS THE HUNT! YOU CANT WISH TO BE GREAT WITHOUT PUTTING IN THE WORK!"
-ETHIPHOPPREACHER

[mselaineous]

@N2BCPA trick answer. Answer D has “in-laws” in the answer, so therefore it can't be answer D. In-laws are never considered related parties.

FAR - Passed (04/16) ROGER
AUD - Passed (05/16) ROGER & Ninja MCQs
REG - Passed (07/16) ROGER & Ninja MCQs
BEC - 08/16

[Spartans92]

N2B, yes grandfather and granddaughter are descendants and should not recognized any G/L due to it being a related party. However, there are exceptions such as Husband/wife, in laws, and individual with a corporation of 50% or more.. these transactions do not fall under related parties. In this question, all other choices have “IN-LAWS” in them, hence, are not the right answers. D is Only partially right not the best answer. So the BEST answer is C.

As Tim gearty puts it in-laws can become out-laws.

BEC- PASS

[N2BCPA]

Thank you! I will remember that Tim quote you gave me Spartan. I got the inlaws things so confused!

REG 07/2016....ROGER/NINJA AUDIO/MCQ/NOTES--62, retake 10/1
BEC
FAR
AUD

"A PART OF BEING A BEAST JUST AINT EATING A GAZELLE; A PART OF BEING A BEAST IS THE HUNT! YOU CANT WISH TO BE GREAT WITHOUT PUTTING IN THE WORK!"
-ETHIPHOPPREACHER

[Spartans92]

Love your quote on your signature! Reading that motivated me a little more 🙂

BEC- PASS

[N2BCPA]

Thanks!!! Extra motivation is always needed!

REG 07/2016....ROGER/NINJA AUDIO/MCQ/NOTES--62, retake 10/1
BEC
FAR
AUD

"A PART OF BEING A BEAST JUST AINT EATING A GAZELLE; A PART OF BEING A BEAST IS THE HUNT! YOU CANT WISH TO BE GREAT WITHOUT PUTTING IN THE WORK!"
-ETHIPHOPPREACHER

[Just_Trying_To_Pass]

So I didn't have much trouble with Individual taxation and Corporate, Partnership, Estate, Taxation. (Lectures R1-4 on Becker). But since I have gotten to the last half of the study material it feels like I hit a brick wall. Ethics and Professional responsibilities in Tax Services (R5) is so incredibly boring. I got an 83 % on my homework questions but still am so confused about substantial authority, reasonable basis, more likely than not. It says this material makes up about 17% of the exam, does this usually hold to be true? R1-4 were a breeze and I didn't really mind studying for them. But R5 and the business law sections are starting to become more and more painful for me.

BEC: 70, 83
REG: 8/13/16
FAR:
AUD:

[Anonymous]

I never did get the MLTN, SA, (something), RB down very well. Yes I would say 17% is about accurate, but there is a lot of material in there. Wait until you get to the UCC stuff – ugh. I tried to pick out what I thought was most important/testable and went with that: statute of frauds, elements of a contract, real and personal defenses, remedies that a seller has when a buyer defaults on a contract, etc. There are some great mneumonics for BLaw if you google for them.

[Author]

Replies