REG Study Group Q4 2014 - Page 39

Viewing 15 replies - 571 through 585 (of 4,354 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #629737
    WANNABE_CPA
    Member

    West, an Indiana real estate broker, misrepresented to Zimmer that West was licensed in Kansas under the Kansas statute that regulates real estate brokers and requires all brokers to be licensed. Zimmer signed a contract agreeing to pay West a 5% commission for selling Zimmer’s home in Kansas. West did not sign the contract. West sold Zimmer’s home. If West sued Zimmer for nonpayment of commission, Zimmer would be:

    A.

    liable to West only for the value of services rendered.

    B.

    liable to West for the full commission.

    C.

    not liable to West for any amount because West did not sign the contract.

    D.

    not liable to West for any amount because West violated the Kansas licensing requirements.

    The answer is C, Which i agree to.

    I have a question, If West signed the contract, still he will not be liable as the contract would be VOID right?

    FAR : 68, 74, 83 Thank you God πŸ™‚
    BEC : 78 (8/27) πŸ™‚
    REG : 72 ,80 (2/25) πŸ™‚
    AUD : 69,67, 07/23

    #629738
    SomedayCPA2015
    Participant

    Wannabe, I believe it would be VOID also. My thought is that if West did sign it, the contract would still not be valid due to West not being properly licensed, therefore void. Is that similar to your reasoning as well, or am I way off? BLaw feels like a different language to me, and I don't like it one bit!

    REG - Passed
    BEC - Passed
    AUD - Passed
    FAR - Passed!!!! I have my life back.

    #629739
    WANNABE_CPA
    Member

    @someday…Yes thats what i meant, in this there are two things going against West to sue, first he has not signed the contract and second even if he did, still he wont be liable to anything since he is not licensed.

    Thanks i just wanted to be sure since none of the options state anything about license.

    FAR : 68, 74, 83 Thank you God πŸ™‚
    BEC : 78 (8/27) πŸ™‚
    REG : 72 ,80 (2/25) πŸ™‚
    AUD : 69,67, 07/23

    #629740
    SomedayCPA2015
    Participant

    Wannabe great, thank you. That helped me to talk it out a little. Thanks for asking the additional question.

    REG - Passed
    BEC - Passed
    AUD - Passed
    FAR - Passed!!!! I have my life back.

    #629741
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I am new to this thread as I just took FAR this week now I am on the REG train. I am praying this is my last section to study for, however, after walking out of Prometric on Tuesday, I feel I will have a rematch with FAR in the first quarter.

    Good luck studying everyone!

    #629742
    WANNABE_CPA
    Member

    Johns leased an apartment from Olsen. Shortly before the lease expired, Olsen threatened Johns with eviction and physical harm if Johns did not sign a new lease for twice the old rent. Johns, unable to afford the expense to fight eviction, and in fear of physical harm, signed the new lease. Three months later, Johns moved and sued to void the lease claiming duress. The lease will be held:

    A.

    void because of the unreasonable increase in rent.

    B.

    voidable because of Olsen's threat to bring eviction proceedings.

    C.

    void because of Johns' financial condition.

    D.

    voidable because of Olsen's threat of physical harm.

    I feel none of them is correct, isnt it VOID if its physical harm?

    FAR : 68, 74, 83 Thank you God πŸ™‚
    BEC : 78 (8/27) πŸ™‚
    REG : 72 ,80 (2/25) πŸ™‚
    AUD : 69,67, 07/23

    #629743
    Amay
    Member

    @Amor to answer your question on the previous page, I believe the full exclusion is still allowed, but let me double check that πŸ™‚

    Edit: My notes say that if widow sells home that surviving spouse owned/occupied with decedent spouse, surviving spouse gets full $500,000 exclusion if they sell the home within 2 years of date of death.

    BEC: 73, 81
    AUD: 85
    FAR: 71, 77
    REG: 74, 75...finally DONE! πŸ˜€

    *This is my 2nd attempt at the CPA exam. For all of you who have failed this exam many times, given up on it, or taken a break like me, remember that it is still possible to finish what you started...failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently πŸ™‚

    #629744
    Amay
    Member

    dams, a general contractor, Brinks, an architect, and Carson, an interior decorator, formed the Dex Home Improvement General Partnership by contributing the assets as follows:

    Adams: Cash; A.B $40,000; FMV 40,000; % of Partner Share in Capital Profits and Losses 50%

    Brinks: Land; A.B $12,000; FMV $21,000; % of Partner Share in Capital Profits and Losses 20%

    Carson Inventory; A.B $24,000; FMV $24,000; % of Partner Share in Capital Profits and Losses 30%

    The land was a capital asset to Brinks, subject to a $5,000 mortgage, which was assumed by the partnership.

    Brinks' initial basis in Dex is:

    A. $21,000.

    B. $12,000.

    C. $8,000.

    D. $5,000.

    The correct answer is C.

    When a general partnership is formed and a partner contributes property to the partnership subject to a liability which is assumed by the partnership, the contributing partner's basis is calculated as follows:

    Carryover Basis of Land Contributed by Brinks $12,000

    LESS: Mortgage Assumed

    by the Partnership – 5,000


    $ 7,000

    ADD: 20% of Mortgage Kept

    by Brinks

    (.20 x $5,000) + 1,000


    Brink's Initial Basis $ 8,000

    =======

    Or $12,000 carryover basis of land contributed by Brinks minus (.80 Γ— $5,000) liability assumed by the other partners.

    I thought you ADDED to the partner's basis the liability assumed by others…what am I missing here?

    BEC: 73, 81
    AUD: 85
    FAR: 71, 77
    REG: 74, 75...finally DONE! πŸ˜€

    *This is my 2nd attempt at the CPA exam. For all of you who have failed this exam many times, given up on it, or taken a break like me, remember that it is still possible to finish what you started...failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently πŸ™‚

    #629745
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    that is how contributing property with a liability to a partnership works.

    first, the partnership assumes the liability. this reduces your basis by the liability, in Brink's case, $5000.

    then, as a partner, you're responsible for a portion of that liability, so you increase your basis for your share of the liability the partnership just assumed. in Brink's case, $5000 x 20% = $1000

    you could think of it like: Brink increases his basis by the net contribution. the basis of the land is $12,000 but it has a mortgage of $5,000 so really he's only contributing $7,000 to the partnership, but as a partner he's also taking on a 20% portion of that liability or $1,000, for a total of an $8,000 contribution.

    the other partners increase their basis by their share of the new liability. Adams would take on 50% of the liability and increase his basis by that amount and Carson takes on 30% of the liability.

    #629746
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hi Amay. Your calculation looks right to me. I think we have to deduct the portion of liabilities assumed by the other partners when we compute for the new basis of the contributing partner.

    #629747
    Amay
    Member

    You guys are right. I had it backwards…it was late and I couldn't get the score I wanted in that topic…ugh..thanks!

    BEC: 73, 81
    AUD: 85
    FAR: 71, 77
    REG: 74, 75...finally DONE! πŸ˜€

    *This is my 2nd attempt at the CPA exam. For all of you who have failed this exam many times, given up on it, or taken a break like me, remember that it is still possible to finish what you started...failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently πŸ™‚

    #629748
    Tax lady
    Participant

    Has anyone heard anything from rzrbkfaith?? I think she tested this week and I was curious how she felt about her test….although I'm sure she did fantastic!

    REG 8/15/14 (73); 11/13/14 (82)-expired πŸ™
    AUD 5/30/15 (80)
    BEC 11/28/15 (75)
    FAR 7/30/16

    Studying with CPAexcel and Ninja notes/MCQ's/Flashcards

    #629749
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I thought rzrbkfaith is a “he”.

    I don't like him, his scores are crazy. LOL!

    He is vying for ELS award.

    I am vying for Diamond 75….

    #629750
    Tax lady
    Participant

    Hmmmm well maybe so. Regardless I was expecting to hear some sort of report. LOL And yes, his/her scores are ridiculous and make this look way too easy.

    REG 8/15/14 (73); 11/13/14 (82)-expired πŸ™
    AUD 5/30/15 (80)
    BEC 11/28/15 (75)
    FAR 7/30/16

    Studying with CPAexcel and Ninja notes/MCQ's/Flashcards

    #629751
    NYCaccountant
    Participant

    @Amor D When do you test? Sending you and Mama bear good vibes! Hoping you two destroy the beast that is REG.

    FAR - 93
    REG - 87
    BEC - 84!!!!
    AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

Viewing 15 replies - 571 through 585 (of 4,354 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group Q4 2014 - Page 39’ is closed to new replies.