[wakefern58]

Hi All,

Could someone please help me with Short-Term (original maturity period of under 1 year) Non-Interest Bearing Notes…

A Becker MCQ states that Short-Term Non-Interest Bearing Notes are initially recognized at their Face Value because the terms are under 1 year…Yet when you move onto the next module, the textbook states “The accounting for Short-Term Non Interest Bearing Notes is similar to Long-Term Non-Interest Bearing Notes”.

So which is it? Thanks all.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Can someone please explain to me how “N” (number of periods) works in the Present Value tables.

Is “N” the same for both PV of $1 and PV of Ordinary Annuity? My thought process was that N was number of compounding periods, but for PV of Ordinary Annuity, would N be the number of payment periods?

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Hi all, I have a question on Capitalizing Interest to the Fixed Asset being constructed.

When an expenditure is made in a year towards the asset being constructed, does that expenditure go into the weighted average expenditure calculation for only the year that it was paid? Or is that expenditure part of the weighted average accumulated expenditures for each year of the capitalization period?

For example: Assume in 2017 that a Company was constructing an asset that qualified for capitalizing interest. Expenditures made in 2017 would obviously be part of the weighted average accumulated expenditures for 2017…But do those expenditures carry over for the weighted average accumulated expenditures in 2018 if the capitalization period extends into 2018?

There's a Becker question that states this but I figured let me ask the question simply before overloading this post with too much. Thanks guys

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

@FutureCPAforThomas

These 2 estimated accrued liabilities would be adjusted to reflect the most up-to-date information because:
#1 There's been an event that occurred within the subsequent period (post year end, pre financial statement issuance) that relates to an item in the FS as of Year End
#2 Conditions related to the event existed as of the 12/31 Balance Sheet and those conditions have now been changed (We thought we were going to settle the case for a lesser amount but now we estimate that the loss will be greater)

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

@Holly I've been studying for about 5 weeks. I have not even looked at the B-Law portion. I am about 60% prepared for the tax part but I obviously do not have it fully prepared to the point I like to get at to go take the test. My NTS does not expire until late October but for certain reasons with a busy season for a client coming up, I need to start studying for FAR. It's not that failing bad would demoralize me because I know I am not prepared, I just do not want such a low score like in the 30's to be held against me in the future.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Thanks @Kdawg22! But do you think such a low score would be held against me in future tests when I am prepared? It could just be me thinking into the grading system too much.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Hey all – I just posted a thread about this but wanted to see if you guys had any thoughts on this.

I have been studying for REG for over a month now and I have my NTS for it. However, I had a change of plans with work and I need to start studying for FAR. Rather than just be a no show for the REG exam, If i were to go in there and take it and fail the test by a lot, do you guys think such a low score would be held against me for my future tests when I am actually prepared?

I hate to waste the money paid for the REG NTS as a no show but I also respect the heck out of these tests and know that an under prepared candidate will not pass. What are your guys thoughts?

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

@Gguzman – I have not taken yet REG yet but I have heard from successful candidates that the best way to break out the review was in “bite size pieces”. Master the individual tax, then master entity tax based on similarities (C-Corp by itself, S-corp and partnerships, then estates/trusts), then move on and study B-Law (Ethics then B-Law). I know this may seem generic but I think this is a great way to not be overwhelmed by it all because REG is hard to keep everything straight.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Hi all – For those of you studying for REG right now who have previously taken FAR, what are your thoughts on both? I know everyone's knowledge and background of a subject is different but I was trying to gauge the complexity and depth of FAR material/mcq&study time compared to REG.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Do you guys advise mastering all of the tax material first before even looking at the business law material?

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

@Holly I've seen a practice SIM on that and the rate was given in the question as “Assume the rate is…”. I don't see anything in the review material that states a set IRS rate for this.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

@Holly In a contribution to a C-Corp where the 80% test is not met, a shareholder holder contributing non cash property would recognize gain as the FMV of asset – NBV of asset.

Now if there's liabilities on the property, im assuming that the full amount would be added to the fmv to calculate amount realized, not just the excess liabilities over NBV of assets like when the 80% test is met.

I am certain about the fmv-NBV part for no control test met, but I am not certain about the liabilities treatment when no 80% is met. The review course doesn't really go into this so it may just be me looking to deep into things.

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Question about C Corp formation if anyone could help me out! Appreciate it so much.

James contributes equipment to a C Corp with a NBV of 140,000 subject to a 60,000 mortgage. The FMV of the property is 260,000. Assuming James does NOT meet the 80% control test (only 10% control after transfer and no others in transfer group), what is his gain recognized on the contribution?

i don't know how to treat the liabilities in a contribution where the 80% test is NOT met. My answer is was 260,000 fmv + full 60,000 liabilities relieved minus NBV of 140,000 = 180,000 gain recognized by Jim. Is this wrong?

Thank you so much guys!

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

I'm in the same boat as all of you guys, just trying not to freak out either! We just gotta keep going and we'll be pleasantly surprised!

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[wakefern58]

Hi All – Quick question about C Corp formation that I can't seem to figure out.

If the 80% control test does not apply (No 351 treatment):

1)Are the types of Boot Received the same as they are when 351 Treatment does apply (Boot = Cash, FMV nonmoney boot, Excess of Liabilities over basis of contributions)? So if property is contributed it would be the FMV + These 3 BOOT – NBV of Asset = Gain Recognized ?

2) Can a shareholder recognize a loss in non351 treatment?

THANK YOU =}

BEC - 77

AUD - 85

REG - TBD

FAR - Q2

[Author]

Replies