[Q3] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 94

Viewing 15 replies - 1,396 through 1,410 (of 2,797 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #598874
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Well now I just feel crappy, thanks @samdiego! Lol.

    Thanks so much for this. Will you be sticking around after you pass FAR? When are you scheduled?

    #598875
    samdiegoCPA
    Member

    @CPA2014Dream, I take it Saturday! I will definitely stick around after a week or two off… I think helping others who are doing this is important. IF I pass, otherwise, you'll see me til early October šŸ™‚

    I need help with this:

    On January 1, Year 1, Peabody Co. purchased an investment for $400,000 that represented 30% of Newman Corp.'s outstanding voting stock. For Year 1, Newman reported net income of $60,000 and paid dividends of $20,000. At year-end, the fair value of Peabody's investment in Newman was $410,000. Peabody elected the fair value option for this investment. What amount should Peabody recognize in net income for Year 1 attributable to the investment?

    A.

    $6,000

    B.

    $10,000

    C.

    $16,000

    D.

    $18,000

    AUD: 84
    REG: 84
    BEC: 79
    FAR: 83

    #598876
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I remember this nightmare question. You reduce your investment by the dividends first so it becomes 394000 and then bring it up to FV of 410000 which makes your income = 16000

    Roger's book page 3-10 last paragraph first bullet “net of dividends received, will be recognized as a gain or loss”

    #598877

    Hi all,

    I'm really not understanding the pension journal entries. More specifically, I'm not understanding when it's a DTA/DTL, Tax Benefit/Expense – Income Statement, or Tax Benefit/Expense – OCI. I understand that the “AGE” accounts are OCI, so things related to that would be the OCI component, but as for the DTA/DTL or expense/benefit, that isn't clicking for me. Any advice?

    FAR - 84
    AUD - 76 (phew)
    BEC - 88
    REG - 77

    DONE!

    #598878
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @samdiegoCPA I just came across this same question while doing MCQ. I think the answer is C. In FVO method, unrealized gain/loss is recognized in earning and dividend received is recorded as income unless it's a liquidating dividend. So it will be unrealized gain of $10,000 (410-400) + dividend income of $6,000 (30% x $20,000). I hope I remembered it correctly. If my answer is wrong, just ignore this post. šŸ™‚

    edit: the explanation of anjanja seems different from mine. I'm using Gleim so I'm just going by that.

    #598879
    riascheme
    Member

    FAR is so discouraging. I was scoring 70% on the progress tests…but as I get through more chapters, my score has dipped to 50%. Any advice on how to get through this better?! 16 days to go. Reviewing Chapter 7 today.

    #598880
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Can someone using Becker help me please? The second set of F4 sims, 1st one. Why are the %'s changing on the accounts receivable aging analysis? Also why is the 17,000 specifically being written off in the over 90 days category vs another one?

    #598881
    samdiegoCPA
    Member

    Here is the answer for the question above… it's using the Equity method although it says in the problem that it's using the Cost to FV Option… you still recognize net income???

    Peabody would recognize $16,000 in Year 1, calculated as follows:

    Cost $400,000

    Income under equity method

    ($60,000 x 0.30) 18,000 $18,000

    Dividends ($20,000 x 0.30) (6,000)


    Balance using equity method $412,000

    Fair value adjustment* (2,000) (2,000)


    Net income from the investment $16,000

    * Fair value adjustment is $412,000 – $410,000.

    AUD: 84
    REG: 84
    BEC: 79
    FAR: 83

    #598882
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Roger has a different explanation for the same question. As far as I understand dividends are not considered “income” under the equity method and investee's income is not being distriduted under FV method, which makes this arithmetic kind of confusing

    #598883
    samdiegoCPA
    Member

    I emailed Jeff because I am crying over that question. It literally says NOPE to all the stuff I know to be correct.

    AUD: 84
    REG: 84
    BEC: 79
    FAR: 83

    #598884
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    hey all,

    can you please help me out:

    On January 1, Year 1, Gearty Corporation loans Olinto Fabrix, Inc. $200,000 with a 10% simple interest note payable in ten years. Interest on the note is payable annually and the principal is due at the end of the term. On January 1, Year 3, Olinto has yet to pay any interest and approaches Gearty in the hope of renegotiating the terms. Gearty agrees, forgives the interest on the note accrued to date, and reduces the interest to 8 percent.

    Choice “d” is correct. Gearty would record a valuation allowance as follows:

    Debit (Dr) Credit (Cr)

    Note receivable $ 240,000

    Bad debt expense 61,240

    Note receivable $ 200,000

    Accrued interest receivable 40,000

    Valuation allowance 61,240

    WORK SHOWN:

    Loan amount $ 200,000

    Present value of $1 at 10% for 8 years .467

    Present value of principal $ 93,400

    Interest payments 200,000

    Reduced rate 8%

    Annual interest 16,000

    Present value of an annuity, 10%, 8 years 5.335

    Present value of interest $ 85,360

    Present value of renegotiated note (93,400 + 85,360) $ 178,760

    Book value of note 240,000

    Impairment of loan $ 61,240

    My question: Why are they still using the 10% rate when calculating the PV principal and Interest? They are using 8 years, but the new terms if 8% so why are they using the 10%?

    Interest payments are using 8%, but to calculate NPV they used the 10% rate.

    #598885
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Maybe what it means is, you still account for the investment under equity but then adjust the value of investment to FV.

    Investment = 400 +18 – 6 = total ending investment 412.

    So far the income recorded = 18

    Now adjust it to FV 410 – 412 = loss of 2

    Total income = 16

    I don't know is this just a method of calculating it or are those entries really should be made? If this is just a method, I would suggest using Roger's, it's way easier

    #598886
    samdiegoCPA
    Member

    @anjanja The way I did it is how you did it too (subtract dividends from the original payment then add up to FV). I think the numbers just tied out magically, but with different numbers, it would be incorrect (Say $80,000 in net income instead of $60,000) then it wouldn't work.

    AUD: 84
    REG: 84
    BEC: 79
    FAR: 83

    #598887
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Sure it would

    Investment = 400 + 24 – 6 = 418

    Income recorded so far = 24

    To adjust investment to FV record loss of 8

    Net income = 24 – 8 = 16

    #598888
    samdiegoCPA
    Member

    Also, about the cumulative effect question you had, I am reading kinda about it because I never thought about what it is either.

    It's like if you change from FIFO to LIFO and debit Inventory to get to the correct number, you have to credit RE then for that change. Every account affected is basically debited or credited to RE to get to the correct numbers.

    https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2007/Feb/ChangesInAccountingForChanges.htm Read through that and correct me if I am wrong but that's how I understand it.

    AUD: 84
    REG: 84
    BEC: 79
    FAR: 83

Viewing 15 replies - 1,396 through 1,410 (of 2,797 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.