[jeff]

Welcome to the Q4 2016 CPA Exam Study Group for REG.

If this is your first post in the study group – please post your target exam date (just the time frame to preserve your anonymity), and your past history with this exam (optional, of course).

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

[mtaylo24]

WTH!! Who should I trust?

Ninja

Downs, Frey, and Vick formed the DFV general partnership to act as manufacturers' representatives. The partners agreed Downs would receive 40% of any partnership profits and Frey and Vick would each receive 30% of such profits. It was also agreed that the partnership would not terminate for five years. After the fourth year, the partners agreed to terminate the partnership. At that time, the partners' capital accounts were as follows: Downs, $20,000; Frey, $15,000; and Vick, $10,000. There also were undistributed losses of $30,000. If Frey died before the partnership terminated:

Incorrect A. Downs and Vick, as a majority of the partners, would have been able to continue the partnership.
B. the partnership would have continued until the 5-year term expired.
C. the partnership would automatically dissolve.
D. Downs and Vick would have Frey's interest in the partnership.

You answered A. The correct answer is C.

If Frey died before the partnership terminated, the partnership would automatically dissolve. Under the typical state partnership laws, death automatically dissolves a partnership. If the partners wanted to continue the partnership after the death of a partner, they can agree to form a new partnership.

Gleim

Fact Pattern: Downs, Frey, and Vick formed the DFV General Partnership to act as manufacturers’ representatives. The partners agreed Downs would receive 40% of any partnership profits and Frey and Vick would each receive 30% of such profits. It was also agreed that the partnership would not terminate for 5 years. After the fourth year, the partners agreed to terminate the partnership. At that time, the partners’ capital accounts were as follows: Downs, $20,000; Frey, $15,000; and Vick, $10,000. There also were undistributed losses of $30,000.

Question: 16 Under the RUPA, if Frey died before the partnership terminated,

A. Downs and Vick, as a majority of the partners, would have been able to continue the partnership.
Answer (A) is correct.
The death of any partner does not dissolve the partnership. The death of a partner results in dissociation. Downs and Vick may continue the partnership after purchasing Frey’s partnership interest.
B. The partnership would have continued even if Downs and Vick decided not to purchase Frey’s partnership interest.
C. The partnership would automatically dissolve.
D. Downs and Vick would have Frey’s interest in the partnership.

AUD - 1st - 60 (12/12), 61 (2/13), 61 (8/13), 78! (11/15)
REG - 55 (2/16) 69 (5/16) Retake(8/16)
BEC - 71(5/16) Retake (9/16)
FAR - (8/16)

[Dman1]

@mtaylo24 – According to Becker, if a general partner dies, partnership dissolves by operations of law.

[MAHMOUD]

what does it mean to have a ZERO (0) BASIS for a shareholders ??? I don't get this idea if there is a zero basis for a shareholders on what basis they will get their share upon distribution ??

[MAHMOUD]

hey everyone, I was trying to get understand the idea of the BOOTS and get different case scenario , I kinda got it, but then I faced these cases:

CASE ONE:
J give up his land 36,000 NBV and 70,000 FMV.
for a 70% stocks of H corporation
gain realized 70,000-36,000 = 34,000
gain recognized 34,000 —–> own less 80%
basis for J = 70,000
basis of H = 70,000

CASE 2:
J give up his land 36,000 NBV and 70,000 FMV.
for a <30%> stocks of H corporation
gain realized 70,000-36,000 = 34,000
gain recognized 0 —–> own less 80% ???????????? explanation is NO BOOT Received
basis for J = 36,000
basis of H = 36,000

WELL I'm NOT sure about the solution since I found this case on a website what is the difference between the two cases, since both own less than 80%, both have FV>BV ??

thank you in advance

[aatoural]

A distribution to an estate's sole beneficiary for the current calendar year equaled $15,000, the amount currently required to be distributed by the will. The estate's current year records were as follows:
Estate income
$40,000
Taxable interest
Estate disbursements
$34,000
Expenses attributable to taxable interest
What amount of the distribution was taxable to the beneficiary?
a.$40,000
b.$6,000 CORRECT
c.$0
d.$15,000

Where does the ^K come from? becker did not explain that

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[Claudia408]

In this corporate formation situation, is there CONTROL?

Get It Right, CPAs, has been retained to review its client's corporate formation calculations for 2016. Maria, Roger, and Novak created Grassroots Tennis, Inc., which began operations on March 1, 2016. Maria contributed four assets in exchange for 40% of GTI stock. Roger performed recruiting services before operations began in exchange for 15% of GTI stock. Novak contributed cash in exchange for 35% of GTI stock and contributed bookkeeping services after operations began in exchange for 10% of GTI stock. One thousand (1,000) shares were issued.

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

[hasy]

I got a rude awakening from doing 3 REG ninja sims… damn…. are the exams one harder bc that was intense….

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved - Helen Keller

-

BEC 80 (10/23/15)
FAR 72 (4/2/15); 83 (7/11/16)
REG 52 (4/28/15)
AUD (9/9/16)

Roger + NINJA MCQ + WTB

[mtaylo24]

What up Reg group? I sat yesterday and it was such a joke, no amount of studying could have have saved me. I must have been the guinea pig for the new questions they came up with. I sat for Reg 4 times now, and this was by far the worst. Test-lets were all easy/medium, the sims were ok 🙁

AUD - 1st - 60 (12/12), 61 (2/13), 61 (8/13), 78! (11/15)
REG - 55 (2/16) 69 (5/16) Retake(8/16)
BEC - 71(5/16) Retake (9/16)
FAR - (8/16)

[Chelsea26]

mtaylo24

Oh that sounds brutal. Did you get any DRS for this one?

BEC - July 2016 → 78
AUD - Sep 2016
REG - Nov 2016
FAR - Feb 2017

[mtaylo24]

^^^^The test was such bs. The “DRS” I got was just a brief tab w/ a few facts. Nothing too crazy. At least I nailed the research.

AUD - 1st - 60 (12/12), 61 (2/13), 61 (8/13), 78! (11/15)
REG - 55 (2/16) 69 (5/16) Retake(8/16)
BEC - 71(5/16) Retake (9/16)
FAR - (8/16)

[aatoural]

A distribution to an estate’s sole beneficiary for the current calendar year equaled $15,000, the amount currently required to be distributed by the will. The estate’s current year records were as follows:
Estate income
$40,000
Taxable interest
Estate disbursements
$34,000
Expenses attributable to taxable interest
What amount of the distribution was taxable to the beneficiary?
a.$40,000
b.$6,000 CORRECT
c.$0
d.$15,000

Where does the 6K come from? becker did not explain that

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[mtaylo24]

40,000 estate income-34,000 estate disbursements = 6,000 taxable distribution

AUD - 1st - 60 (12/12), 61 (2/13), 61 (8/13), 78! (11/15)
REG - 55 (2/16) 69 (5/16) Retake(8/16)
BEC - 71(5/16) Retake (9/16)
FAR - (8/16)

[hasy]

As I finish my first chapter in Business law, my hatred for this area intensifies…… For an area that is TESTED the LEAST, why is it so detailed? >.<

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved - Helen Keller

-

BEC 80 (10/23/15)
FAR 72 (4/2/15); 83 (7/11/16)
REG 52 (4/28/15)
AUD (9/9/16)

Roger + NINJA MCQ + WTB

[aatoural]

thanks mtaylo24

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[RE2PECT]

Sh!t mtaylo24 you can't catch a break! Keep your head up bro. You did enough mcq's to have seen pretty much anything they could throw at you. If you never saw what was on your exam, then whoever else took the same version feels the same way.

Anyone know how to post a screenshot? Every time I try it never comes up. I found two conflicting explanations on Rule 10b-5 between Ninja and Roger and not sure who's right.

FAR: 75 Roger & Ninja (notes/flashcards/audio/MCQ)
AUD: 73, 81
BEC: 71, retake 8/29
REG:

[Author]

Replies