Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
REG STUDY GROUP
 CPAnet Forum : REG STUDY GROUP
Subject Topic: partnership (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
  
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
arushi_13
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1235
Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 11:39 | IP Logged  

Dale's distributive share of income from the calendar year partnership of Dale and Eck was $50,000 in 2005. On Dec 15,2005 Dale who is a cash basis tp received a 27k distribution of the partnership's 2005 income, with the $23,000 balance paid to Dale in Feb 2006. In addition, Dale received a $10,000 interest free loan from the partnership in 2005. This $10k is to offset against Dale's share of 2006 partnership income. What amount of the partnership income is taxable to Dale in 2005.

Ans: 50k.I understand why it is 50k.

In the explanation the following sentence is given which creates confusion for me..
" The 10k interest free loan does NOT effect the pass through of income for 2005, and the $10k offset against Dale's distributive share of partnership income for 2006 will NOT effect the pass through of that income in 2006."What I do not understand is the Q specifically says that the 10k loan is offset against Dale's share of 2006 P'ship income then why is it stated otherwise or maybe I m just NOT understanding it right..

Thanks a lot.


__________________
CA Board
FARE -87
AUD - 87
BEC - 81
REG - 84
ALL DONE !!!

Arushi
Back to Top View arushi_13's Profile Search for other posts by arushi_13
 
bryris
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 07 Dec 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 624
Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 12:28 | IP Logged  

Its a stupid question. That is my take on it.

All partnership income is taxed whether distributed or not. It sounds to me like the partner received 27k in 2005, and then received a loan of 10,000k instead of his share of income for 2005. Maybe he needed the money now or something. The best I can come up with is this was some sort of advance payment for the 2006 distribution.

The explanation is merely saying to not complicate the basic rule that income is taxed. 50,000 inc = 50,000 to be taxed.


__________________
REG - 97
FAR - 97
BEC - 90
AUD - 97
Back to Top View bryris's Profile Search for other posts by bryris Visit bryris's Homepage
 



Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.


  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 0.1099 seconds.

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