[jeff]

Free 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/

Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

[Anonymous]

Thanks NYC. I really appreciate it.

I am testing on 10/20, but I have just gotten my study mode back in the last 5 days. I know I can test better if I could have extra 5-6 days to review after Oct 20th. My new job gave me 6 days time off of work. I am screwed.

[NYCaccountant]

@Amor D Word of advice, **Basis** Make sure you know how to calc basis for partnerships, S/C Corporations, etc. I see this is your first REG attempt, the business law questions on the actual exam are not as hard as the actual exam, so you should spend these last few study days focusing heavily on tax. I think SIMS are all tax. How are you doing with the tax portion?

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

[Anonymous]

I need extra days to go back to my tax notes and work on Tax MCQs. I am really screwed.

[Anonymous]

i'm taking REG on 10/28. Right now i feel like i don't remember anything. Just going to buckle down and hit MCQs

[Amay]

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms when is it that a shareholder would record a gain when contributing property to a corporation? I know that there is no gain or loss when they are only contributing property for stock, but in what case do you record a gain or loss?

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

*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 🙂

[SomedayCPA2015]

Wannabe I agree with you. I was confused on this question too. Was it in Becker or Ninja MCQ? I can't remember. I'm just curious how the answer is explained.

The only reason I could see it being VOIDABLE is because of the economic component of eviction, which is obviously not an answer choice. The answer of VOIDABLE due to physical threat makes no sense to me either, especially when Becker practically uses the same scenario. The only difference is their example is just a little more extreme in that “I'll blow your head off” is used, as opposed to physical harm if they do not sign the contract….I hope we don't see a question like this on the exam…

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

[Amay]

During 2014, HAS Corp. had the following income and expenses:

Gross receipts $700,000

Salaries 300,000

Contributions to qualified charitable

organizations (paid 1/2/14) 60,000

Capital gains 7,000

Depreciation expense 28,000

Dividend income 60,000

Dividends-received deduction 42,000

What is the amount of HAS Corp.'s charitable contribution deduction for 2014?

A.

$33,400

Correct B.

$43,900

C.

$46,900

D.

$60,000

You are correct, the answer is B.

Without the charitable contributions and dividends-received deduction, the taxable income is $439,000. Allowable contributions are $43,900.

A corporation cannot deduct contributions that total more than 10% of its taxable income. Capital gains are used in the computation of net income as is the full amount of dividends received. Carryover of excess contributions is limited to five years.

My question: why is capital gains included in this computation…I thought that was a separately stated item?

Thanks!

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

*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 🙂

[taxgeek83]

Still waiting on a BEC score, but got to pull out my REG book this morning. Saved this one for last as kind of a reward to myself for making it through the other three.

Totally nerding out over here…. 🙂

[Anonymous]

@Amay “separately stated items” arise in flow through entities like partnerships and S corporations because the individuals are taxed differently on those items. for example, charitable contributions are separately stated in partnerships because they can flow through to partner A who can fully deduct it but partner B can only deduct some of it because it exceeds 50% of his AGI.

C corporations aren't flow through entities. they are taxed as separate entities, items do not “flow through” to shareholders individually so there is no need to separately state items. a C corporation's capital gain is the corporation's capital gain and nobody else's.

@SomedayCPA2015: the duress thing has given me a lot of problems too and I've seen lots of conflicting info. the general conclusion I've reached (which may or may not be accurate) is threats of physical harm don't create void contracts, it's only ACTUAL physical harm that would render it void. I think this would probably extend to someone holding a gun to your head. but, just threatening someone falls into the “improper threats” category which is voidable.

[Anonymous]

What's an easy way to remember all the excluded and deducted items for tax? I have zero experience in tax and none of this stuff is sticking. I'm doing much better on the law section, but get NOTHING on tax.

[taxgeek83]

@CPA – Have you tried pulling up a 1040 (with all of the schedules) or the business returns (1065, 1120S, 1120)? It might not help much with nontaxable items, but if you have an idea of how the forms look and work it could help quite a bit with deductions. I'm a pretty visual learner so that always helped me when I was first learning.

[Anonymous]

I have not, but I will now though. This is the first time where NOTHING at all will stick with me. I don't even know what I'm reading and it seems like I'm just wasting my time. Maybe the Ninja notes will help.

Thanks for the help.

[Amay]

@dragnets thanks! Another RTMFQ!!

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

*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 🙂

[Amay]

Well, I guess I am happy to know I can get a FIFO question correct in REG!

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

*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 🙂

[Amay]

Which of the following acts, if committed by an agent, will cause a principal to be liable to a third party?

A.

A negligent act committed by an independent contractor, in performance of the contract, which results in injury to a third party

B.

An intentional tort committed by an employee outside the scope of employment, which results in injury to a third party

C.

An employee's failure to notify the employer of a dangerous condition that results in injury to a third party

D.

A negligent act committed by an employee outside the scope of employment that results in injury to a third party

I answered A. The correct answer is C.

All employees who deal with third parties are deemed to be agents of the employer. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the principal-employer is liable for any harm caused to a third party by an agent-employee within the scope of employment. Acts committed outside the scope of employment that result in the injury of a third party would not cause the principal to be liable to the third party.

Independent contractors may or may not be considered agents (a real estate agent, who is an independent contractor, has an agency relationship with the seller of a house). This question provides no reason that the independent contractor was acting as an agent when the negligent act was committed. Therefore, the principal would not be liable to the third party in this instance.

My question is, how does “This question provides no reason that the independent contractor was acting as an agent when the negligent act was committed.”?? Answer A clearly states that the contractor was acting in performance of the contract…

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

*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 🙂

[Author]

Replies