- This topic has 4,354 replies, 165 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
pia ach.
-
CreatorTopic
-
August 30, 2014 at 3:34 pm #188296
jeffKeymasterFree Study Planner, Notes, Audio, Flashcards: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/
Free CPA Exam Survival Guide: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-survival-guide/
-
AuthorReplies
-
October 16, 2014 at 9:18 pm #629737
WANNABE_CPAMemberWest, 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 Zimmerβs home in Kansas. West did not sign the contract. West sold Zimmerβs 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 π
BEC : 78 (8/27) π
REG : 72 ,80 (2/25) π
AUD : 69,67, 07/23October 16, 2014 at 9:38 pm #629738
SomedayCPA2015ParticipantWannabe, 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.October 16, 2014 at 9:53 pm #629739
WANNABE_CPAMember@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 π
BEC : 78 (8/27) π
REG : 72 ,80 (2/25) π
AUD : 69,67, 07/23October 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm #629740
SomedayCPA2015ParticipantWannabe 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.October 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm #629741
AnonymousInactiveOctober 17, 2014 at 1:24 am #629742
WANNABE_CPAMemberJohns 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 π
BEC : 78 (8/27) π
REG : 72 ,80 (2/25) π
AUD : 69,67, 07/23October 17, 2014 at 1:32 am #629743
AmayMember@Amor to answer your question on the previous page, I believe the full exclusion is still allowed, but let me double check that π
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! π*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 π
October 17, 2014 at 5:23 am #629744
AmayMemberdams, 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! π*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 π
October 17, 2014 at 6:10 am #629745
AnonymousInactivethat 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.
October 17, 2014 at 6:20 am #629746
AnonymousInactiveHi 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.
October 17, 2014 at 1:18 pm #629747
AmayMemberYou 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! π*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 π
October 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm #629748
Tax ladyParticipantHas 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 π
AUD 5/30/15 (80)
BEC 11/28/15 (75)
FAR 7/30/16Studying with CPAexcel and Ninja notes/MCQ's/Flashcards
October 17, 2014 at 2:16 pm #629749
AnonymousInactiveI 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….
October 17, 2014 at 2:24 pm #629750
Tax ladyParticipantHmmmm 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 π
AUD 5/30/15 (80)
BEC 11/28/15 (75)
FAR 7/30/16Studying with CPAexcel and Ninja notes/MCQ's/Flashcards
October 17, 2014 at 2:33 pm #629751
NYCaccountantParticipant@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. -
AuthorReplies
- The topic ‘REG Study Group Q4 2014 - Page 39’ is closed to new replies.
