Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
FAR STUDY GROUP
 CPAnet Forum : FAR STUDY GROUP
Subject Topic: QUESTION OF THE DAY - MCQ’S ALL SECTIONS (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
  
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
AndrewCPA
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 763
Posted: 05 Nov 2010 at 14:15 | IP Logged  

Correct Answer: D

Explanation: 
A donation of stock to the corporation causes no reduction of assets and therefore does not affect total stockholders' equity. Under the cost method, there would be only a memorandum entry in the treasury stock account. When reissued, the proceeds would be credited to APIC: Donated Capital. Under the par value method, Treasury Stock would be debited and APIC: Donated Capital would be credited for the par value. When reissued, proceeds in excess of par would be credited to APIC: Donated Capital.



__________________
Andrew Lee, CPA
Wiley and Kaplan discounts for CPAnet members
Back to Top View AndrewCPA's Profile Search for other posts by AndrewCPA Visit AndrewCPA's Homepage
 
AndrewCPA
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 763
Posted: 05 Nov 2010 at 18:14 | IP Logged  

Today's question: BEC

At December 31, 2010, Zar Co. had a machine with an original cost of $84,000, accumulated depreciation of $60,000, and an estimated salvage value of zero. On December 31, 2010, Zar was considering the purchase of a new machine having a five-year life, costing $120,000, and having an estimated salvage value of $20,000 at the end of five years. In its decision concerning the possible purchase of the new machine, how much should Zar consider as sunk cost at December 31, 2010?

A)   $120,000

B)   $100,000

C)   $24,000

D)   $4,000



__________________
Andrew Lee, CPA
Wiley and Kaplan discounts for CPAnet members
Back to Top View AndrewCPA's Profile Search for other posts by AndrewCPA Visit AndrewCPA's Homepage
 
tagee
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10
Posted: 05 Nov 2010 at 18:33 | IP Logged  

c

__________________
REG 7/21/10 65
BEC 8/30/10 66 ;11/29/10 62
FAR ?
AUD ?
Back to Top View tagee's Profile Search for other posts by tagee
 
divyagovil1
Major Contributor
Major Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1456
Posted: 08 Nov 2010 at 05:45 | IP Logged  

AndrewCPA wrote:

Today's question: BEC

At December 31, 2010, Zar Co. had a machine with an original cost of $84,000, accumulated depreciation of $60,000, and an estimated salvage value of zero. On December 31, 2010, Zar was considering the purchase of a new machine having a five-year life, costing $120,000, and having an estimated salvage value of $20,000 at the end of five years. In its decision concerning the possible purchase of the new machine, how much should Zar consider as sunk cost at December 31, 2010?

A)   $120,000

B)   $100,000

C)   $24,000

D)   $4,000

Answer C) $24,000. However, the book value of the present machine, however, is a sunk cost and is irrelevant in decision to buy the new machine.



__________________
Divya - CO State

Passed using Becker Review :
FAR - 04/11/09 - 94
BEC - 05/30/09 - 86
REG - 08/29/09 - 95
AUD - 11/21/09 - 92
Ethics - 2011
Back to Top View divyagovil1's Profile Search for other posts by divyagovil1 Visit divyagovil1's Homepage
 
AndrewCPA
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 763
Posted: 08 Nov 2010 at 17:01 | IP Logged  

Correct Answer: C

Explanation: 
A "sunk cost" is a cost which has been incurred and will not be changed by any future decision; it is therefore irrelevant to a decision and excluded in its analysis. The original cost of an asset less its accumulated depreciation (book value) is a sunk cost for replacement decisions as the replacement would not affect these amounts.



__________________
Andrew Lee, CPA
Wiley and Kaplan discounts for CPAnet members
Back to Top View AndrewCPA's Profile Search for other posts by AndrewCPA Visit AndrewCPA's Homepage
 




<< Prev Page of 164 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version 7.9
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz Guide

This page was generated in 0.1250 seconds.

Copyright © 1996-2016 CPAnet/MizWeb Communities All Rights Reserved
Twitter
|Facebook |CPA Exam Club | About | Contact | Newsletter | Advertise & Promote