[jeff]

BEC is out. Hopefully it is not too much longer for us! Sadly, REG always seems to be last :-/

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

[Anonymous]

@bmw: Depending on the software you have, it may be out of date. Becker gives updates on its website (though I never actually figured out where or how to use these). The amount IS $100, though.

For the exam, you are usually not required to know specific numbers like that, though. Be familiar with the concept and that there is an exemption in general. They know that figures are always changing, so you're not expected to know exact amount. Mostly the theory behind it.

[Anonymous]

@dropout- Agreed with the general knowledge of the theory, but should they happen to test, the amount would be $500. Check a few of the other forums for REG for this same question. Becker, in their 2010 Software, uses the $500 amount for a reason.

[ketu_kuta]

And the reason is, it's changing to $500 back again. Check 2010 updates on Becker website.

[potatogun]

I thought the update said it is $100 for 2010. I changed my numbers in the book according to the 2010 tax law update.

From the Becker 2010 Tax Law Update: “For 2010, the $500 reduction for casualty and theft losses returns to $100.”

Posted June 22, 2010.

FAR 92 - AUD 91 - REG 94 - BEC 86

[ketu_kuta]

Sorry, Potatogun, you're right! Please ignore!

[Anonymous]

@potato – exactly. That's what my Becker has, as well. And I've taken the exam and passed it. Really, though, with all the changing of the numbers – that's even MORE reason that they should not test specific details. Again – the general theory is what matters most. Don't sweat the really fine print, bmw. Just know the basics.

[potatogun]

Hey CPASchoolDropout what do you think about calculating AMT exemptions though? Or do they give you the phase out info?

FAR 92 - AUD 91 - REG 94 - BEC 86

[Anonymous]

@potato– I'd know the AMT formula. What review system are you using?

[potatogun]

Becker. It states that exemption formulas are asked I was just wondering what type of numbers are given. I can memorize them if need be.

FAR 92 - AUD 91 - REG 94 - BEC 86

[Anonymous]

I, too, used Becker. It'd be safe to say to just memorize that formula. It'll come in handy not only for calculations, but also for some theory.

[Trying like crazy_CPA]

Since you guys are talking about it, should I not worry about memorizing all the phaseout thresholds then? Just know when something has a phaseout vs. knowing what amount of AGI the phaseout applies to? Or is knowing the actual $ of AGI game in a test question? I've had serious difficulty in my last couple review weeks for REG because I am not sure whether to memorize all these numbers. And I can tell you with 100% certainty I have not even begun to start memorizing them. I am good with theory, I am not good at memorizing 100 different amounts for different deductions and credits, etc. Should I be worrying at all about my approach for taking this test?

Thanks

FAR 2/22- 87, BEC 4/14- 87, AUD 5/28- 92, REG 8/30

[Anonymous]

Phaseout thresholds are important; I'd definitely be more than familiar with them just to be safe.

[potatogun]

Okay well that pretty much goes against the just knowing the theory stance…

So how specific are we talking here. And which thresholds are key? I would imagine basic % of AGI for deductions and such would be tested but there are tons of phaseout numbers.

FAR 92 - AUD 91 - REG 94 - BEC 86

[Anonymous]

I would have to disagree – and I took the live Becker classes and was told that you don't need to know exact threshold amounts. These things change every year, and there's always a lag in the changes in law and when the test examiners update the questions.

I think you're safe if you can recognize that something is well above the threshold. But to spend time memorizing exact amounts seems like a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

I'm saying that it is important; disagree if you wish.

@potato- I'm not saying to memorize every #, but I am saying you should know the casualty loss, the AMT formula & exemption. There may be one or two more, but I cannot think of them off the top of my head. And allow me to reiterate, this is just to be safe, and let's be honest, if it gets you that one or two more points, I think it's well worth it.

[Author]

Replies