REG Study Group Q1 2017

CPA Exam Forum REG REG Review REG Study Group Q1 2017

This topic contains 1,413 replies, has 113 voices, and was last updated by CPA788 CPA788 6 hours, 2 minutes ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 541 through 570 (of 1,414 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1426523

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @brittany lutz working from memory here but I'm pretty sure death of a partner automatically dissolves a partnership. Not sure why wiley says otherwise. In other cases where you just have withdrawals from a partnership I believe it has to be over 50% of the partners withdrawal in 1 year.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1426577

    Tarheel83
    Participant

    Figured I would swing by and say hello. I have not read all of the messages, but you all have been busy already. I just finished studying for my first FAR retake and I just finished the exam on 1/7/17. Now, I have 4 weeks to study for REG, cram and hope that I can pull out a win (taking it for the first time on 2/4/17), then on to retake for BEC 3/6. Any pointers on REG?

    Best of luck to everyone!

    #1426592

    Tony73085
    Participant

    New to the group. Took REG for first time in Nov. 2016 and underestimated the Sims and didn't get to finish the exam even though I did great in MCQ. Just took REG again today and I managed my time better and finished the whole exam. Hopefully I passed. Will take BEC within 3 weeks. Continuing the journey.


    Only True Failure is Giving Up!!!
    AUD - NINJA in Training
    BEC - NINJA in Training
    FAR - NINJA in Training
    REG - 73
    #1426619
    vorobjeva44
    vorobjeva44
    Participant

    Hi guys! Is there anybody who used NINJA PLUS videos for REG? I used them for BEC and it kind of helped me, so I am looking for an opinion on REG section. Is it worth buying? Thanks!!! 🙂


    Don't be upset with the results you didn't get from the work you didn't do.

    BEC 72, 80
    REG Dec 2016
    AUD 2017
    FAR 2017

    #1426628
    jack yassa
    jack yassa
    Participant

    @dtatham10
    Where is that on Becker book?


    Jack Yassa
    #1426706

    esenthil
    Participant

    Parent Corp. owns 15% of Sub Corp. Parent has gross income of $43,000 and allowable deductions of $39,000 before considering any dividends received deduction (DRD). Included in the $43,000 gross income is $8,000 in dividends from Sub.
    What is the maximum DRD available to Parent?

    Becker answer is 2800$. – 70% * 4000.

    ( lesser of 70% * 8000 or (43000-39000) * 70% – limitation)

    I thought if it creates NOL then allow the maximum which is 70% * 8000 = 5600$

      Can you guys help me on this. Thanks


      E.Senthil
      AUD - 75
      BEC - 80
      FAR - 80
      REG - 86
    #1426763

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @esenthil what you said is correct. I would have chose the same answer as you. The DRD rules state the lesser of taxable income DRD or DRD. However IF when taking the DRD it creates a NOL then TI DRD is thrown out the window and you take the full DRD.

    Not sure why Becker has that answer. I must be missing something.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1426800

    esenthil
    Participant

    Thank you dtatham. I am not able to cut and paste the answer.I will try later.So when are you planning to take REG. I can see you have mastered the concepts.I know 74 hurts. All the best 🙂


    E.Senthil
    AUD - 75
    BEC - 80
    FAR - 80
    REG - 86
    #1426977

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @esenthil I run in cycles. At times I feel like I have the concepts down great then a week later I'll feel like I have them all mixed up! It's scary.

    I'm trying to brush up on estate tax but there's not a ton in the Becker book on it. Can someone briefly explain the jist of the table in Becker on page R4-63


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1426980

    JMG
    Participant

    For those who are using Becker, is there any way to access the sims directly or do you have to go into each practice section?


    Studying For The CPA: How To Lose Friends and Alienate People
    #1426998

    isoceles
    Participant

    Questions:
    1) Is it true that Q1 tests 2016 material still? Specifically concerning on some of the tax stuff.
    2) I've done a bunch of NINJA MCQs and am looking to get another online based one. What are the more popular ones? I just want to do MCQs, not books, etc.

    Good luck to everyone!

    #1427138

    alerito
    Participant

    @jmg at the end of the chapters there is a final review, there is a review for all the simulations.


    AB
    AUD - NINJA in Training
    BEC - NINJA in Training
    FAR - 75
    REG - NINJA in Training
    #1427490

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @isoceles 1) yes that is true. I believe the new 2017 tax code gets introduced in the 3Q. 2) Purely MCQ's I Ninja is your best bang for your buck. I believe Becker offers something but I'm not familiar of a lot that offer solely the mcq's.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1427502

    dtatham10
    Participant

    Lazy request. Does anyone have a breakdown of the Distributions and contributions of a Corp, S Corp, and Partnership? For instance a partners contributions in a partnership take on the basis of what it was to the partner and you subtract the portion of liabilities that the partnership assumes.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1427592

    aatoural
    Participant
    #1427523

    JMG
    Participant

    @alerito thanks!


    Studying For The CPA: How To Lose Friends and Alienate People
    #1427667

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @aatoural somewhat. I was hoping to combine info from the corp sections and parternship sections. I didnt know if someone had their own notes they would like to share. I know the rules but from time to time I mix them up.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1427696

    RE2PECT
    Participant

    @dtatham10


    Roger & Ninja

    FAR: 75
    AUD: 73, 81
    BEC: 71, 73, 82
    REG: 68, 2/27

    #1427711

    dtatham10
    Participant

    Post edited – please read the forum rules:

    https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-forum/topic/cpa-exam-forum-faqs-and-help-center/

    We aren’t trying to be sticklers – just consistent.

    – Mod NINJAs


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1427742

    aatoural
    Participant

    I have one as well but is in my work's computer. I think re2pect will hop you faster today.

    I have this question. I know why is A but, Why not D?

    Able hired Carr to restore Able’s antique car for $800. The terms of their oral agreement provided that Carr was to complete the work within 18 months. Actually, the work could be completed within 1 year. The agreement is
    A. Enforceable because the work could be completed within 1 year. CORRECT
    B. Unenforceable because it covers a time period in excess of 1 year.
    C. Unenforceable because it covers services with a value in excess of $500.
    D. Enforceable because personal service contracts are exempt from the statute of frauds.


    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - PASSED
    REG - PASSED
    FAR - 3/10/17
    #1427865

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @aa I need to look at the rules but A and D conflict each other. If you are using the under 1 year rule then you are applying the statute of frauds rules MYLEGS…Y is performed in less then a year.

    D says exempt from statute of frauds so essentially saying the statute of frauds doesn't apply in this scenario. Without going back to the book I believe its the service can be performed in less then a year is the statute of frauds rule so because of that A would be right and D would be incorrect.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1427937

    aatoural
    Participant

    dtatham10 -I might be reading it wrong, to me it meant that since it was services it did not follow the rules of the statute of fraud. But is tricky because is services plus performed within a year.


    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - PASSED
    REG - PASSED
    FAR - 3/10/17
    #1427981

    dtatham10
    Participant

    I would say its just a wording trick it reads like its only exempt because its a personal service contract which isn't true. It's exempt because its a personal service contract AND it can be performed within a year. I think leaving out the last part make the answer wrong.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1428401

    norseman88
    Participant

    Can someone please explain why Interest Income is a separately stated item for S corps but Interest Expense is a non-separately stated item.

    Thank you.

    #1428534

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @norseman88 I've struggled with that one as well. Interest income is a portfolio or investment type income, these items are taxed different. Think of interest expense as interest you would pay on your mortgage or loan from your bank, this is more of an ordinary item that would not need to be separately stated. Someone much smarter then me explained this to me last quarter but I am trying my best to pass it along as best I can ;).


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1428537

    dtatham10
    Participant

    Ooops looks like I broke some rules earlier! Honest mistake, sorry for getting you in trouble @re2pect!!!


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
    #1428548

    norseman88
    Participant

    @dtathahm10 Thanks for the reply. I think that helps a little bit and I just need to remember that on the exam, interest expense will not be separately stated.

    I struggle with this as there is nothing separately stated for investment expense, which should reduce the amount of investment income (investment interest).

    #1428822

    wakefern58
    Participant

    Could someone help explain this one to me regarding C Corp Bonus Expenses? Thanks! The answer is 610,000 but I am still trying to wrap my head around this one.

    Soma Corp. had $600,000 in compensation expense for book purposes in Year 1. Included in this amount was a $50,000 accrual for Year 1 nonshareholder bonuses. Soma paid the actual Year 1 bonus of $60,000 on March 1, Year 2. In its Year 1 tax return, what amount should Soma deduct as compensation expense?
    a.

    $600,000
    b.

    $550,000
    c.

    $610,000
    d.

    $540,000

    #1428827

    Ryan
    Participant

    The $50K accrual is an estimate. Actual year 1 bonus paid in year 2 was $10K more than the estimated accrual.

    Credit Acrrued Expense 10K
    Debit Comp Expense 10K

    600+10=610


     
    AUD - 93
    BEC - 85
    FAR - 85
    REG - 85
    #1434120

    dtatham10
    Participant

    @waker to add the bonus payment was made before the April 15th filing date. Had the payment been made after the filing date the extra 10k paid in bonuses would fall under year 2. Since it came before the filing date they were allowed to retroactively include it into year 1.


    Got my life back!
    AUD - 80
    BEC - 82
    FAR - 78
    REG - 89
Viewing 30 posts - 541 through 570 (of 1,414 total)
Return to Front Page

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.