[jeff]

Welcome to the Q2 2015 CPA Exam Study Group for REG.

“Death and Taxes” – Individual Tax for the CPA Exam

Posted by Another71 on Monday, November 24, 2014

Free NINJA: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/

AUD - 79
BEC - 80
FAR - 76
REG - 92

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

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain a general partnership. This question has me confused maybe it's the way it's worded. Eller, fort, and Owens do business as venture associates, a general partnership. Trent corp. brought a breach of contract suit against venture and eller individually. Trent won the suit and filed a judgement against both venture and eller. Trent will generally be able to collect the judgement from:

A. Ellers personal assets only

B. Ellers personal assets only after partnership assets are exhausted.

C. Personal assets of eller, fort and Owens only

D. Partnership assets only.

Correct answer: B

I thought for a GP all other partners are liable for the torts committed by other partners in the scope of the partnership. So technically, isn't C also a correct answer?

[OnlyBelieve]

cpa8488- For a general partnership, all partners are jointly and severally liable, which means a party bringing a case against the partnership can go after the partners' personal assets(Severally) only after the partnership assets(jointly) are exhausted. So partnership assets first, and then partners' personal assets.

AUD - DONE
BEC - DONE
REG - 04/04
FAR - 05/30

[FIFOisbetterthanLIFO]

Hey guys, since REG was my last exam and this is what I used to do every night… I just wanted to say its Friday night and I sacrificed many a Friday's to get through all of these exams. Keep your head up and grind it out. I can proudly say that I earned the right to watch any and every game of March Madness. Good luck to you all who are heading into April and May. Stay strong!!!!

FAR - Passed (82)
BEC - Passed (76)
AUD - Passed (89)
REG - Passed! (81)
AICPA Ethics

Licensed CPA

[OnlyBelieve]

Thanks for the encouragement FIFOisbetterthanLIFO and congrats!

AUD - DONE
BEC - DONE
REG - 04/04
FAR - 05/30

[Gabe]

Rise and shine folks! Here's to a happy Saturday of studying 🙂

Thanks @Fifo!

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[Gabe]

Working through SIMS…

Medical expenses deductible on sch A.

Mother's medical expenses paid by Miller during the year $4,200

Answer: Medical expenses paid for Miller and his dependents are deductible. Although Miller’s mother is not his dependent, for the purposes of Schedule A, she can be considered a dependent if the only reason preventing that status is the gross income test. (IRC Section 213(a))

So, if I pay medical expenses for my mom it is deductible on Sch A if the ONLY reason they would not be deductible is if she has gross income over the threshold. Correct?

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[Holly]

@Gabe I just looked for that in my book and this is what it says – deductible for taxpayer, spouse, dependent who received over half his or her support from the filing taxpayer. The definition of “dependent” for this purpose does not consider the dependent's gross income or the joint return requirement.

AUD - 76
BEC - 82
FAR - 82
REG - 86

Becker & Ninja MCQ

 

 

 

BEC - 79
REG - 85
AUD - 5/27/16

[OnlyBelieve]

I understand we are talking about dependency exemptions here, but also remember that medical expenses are not subject to phase-outs. Key point to note.

AUD - DONE
BEC - DONE
REG - 04/04
FAR - 05/30

[Gabe]

@HR so disregard gross income test…

and medical expenses have to exceed 10% of AGI to be counted on Sch A…or are you referring to the fact that there is no income phase out?

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[Gabe]

The 70% dividends-received deduction is available to determine ACE. False

So, this is false because the 70% DRD is used to calculate AMTI and is referred to as an ACE adjustment. Correct?

semantics..

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[hunter32]

False because the actual deduction is not allowed and it's added back to determine ACE?

BEC - 80 (Becker)
AUD - 92 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
FAR - 87 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
REG - 90 (Becker+NINJA MCQ and Audio)

[Gabe]

@hunter, Becker R3-34 “the amount taken for the 70% DRD is added back”…the total after adjustments is called ACE.

Now I am confused…you CAN add back the 70% DRD and it DOES determine ACE.

Or is the question stating it is false because it's not a deduction?

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[hunter32]

Yeah, its added back. Part of MOLDD (R3-34)

BEC - 80 (Becker)
AUD - 92 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
FAR - 87 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
REG - 90 (Becker+NINJA MCQ and Audio)

[Gabe]

OOOOh by saying “available” they mean “available to deduct” which it is not. It is added back to determine ACE.

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[hunter32]

Exactly. Word play :/

BEC - 80 (Becker)
AUD - 92 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
FAR - 87 (Becker+NINJA MCQ)
REG - 90 (Becker+NINJA MCQ and Audio)

[Author]

Replies