Chap2 PDF

Larsen: Modern Advanced I. Accounting for 2.
Partnerships: © The McGraw−Hill

Accounting, Tenth Edition Partnerships and Branches Organization and Operation Companies, 2005
Chapter Two
Partnerships:
Organization and
Operation
Scope of Chapter
The Uniform Partnership Act, which has been adopted by most of the states, defines a part-
nership (often referred to as a firm) as “an association of two or more persons to carry on,
as co-owners, a business for profit.” In this definition, the term persons includes individu-
als and other partnerships, and in some states, corporations. Partnerships generally are as-
sociated with the practice of law, medicine, public accounting, and other professions, and
also with small business enterprises. In some states licensed professional persons such as
CPAs are forbidden to incorporate because the creation of a corporate entity might weaken
the confidential relationship between the professional person and the client. However, a
number of states have approved legislation designed to permit professional corporations,
which have various requirements as to professional licensing of stockholders, transfers of
stock ownership, and malpractice insurance coverage.
The traditional form of partnership under the Uniform Partnership Act has been the
general partnership, in which all partners have unlimited personal liability for unpaid
debts of the partnership. However, laws of several states now permit the formation of lim-
ited liability partnerships (LLPs), which have features of both general partnerships and
professional corporations. Individual partners of LLPs are personally responsible for their
own actions and for the actions of partnership employees under their supervision; how-
ever, they are not responsible for the actions of other partners. The LLP as a whole, like a
general partnership, is responsible for the actions of all partners and employees. Since
many of the issues of organization, income-sharing plans, and changes in ownership of
now-prevalent LLPs are similar to those of general partnerships, LLPs are discussed in
this section. The organization of limited liability partnerships and income-sharing plans
and changes in ownership of such partnerships are discussed and illustrated first, followed
by an explanation of the characteristics of, accounting for, and financial statements of
limited partnerships (which differ significantly from LLPs). The chapter ends with a
description of SEC enforcement actions involving unethical violations of accounting stan-
dards for partnerships.
25
Larsen: Modern Advanced I. Accounting for 2. Partnerships: © The McGraw−Hill
26 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches
ORGANIZATION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Characteristics of an LLP
The basic characteristics of an LLP are:
Ease of Formation In contrast with a corporation, a limited liability partnership may be
created by an oral or a written contract between two or more persons, or may be implied by
their conduct. This advantage of convenience and minimum cost of the formation of a part-
nership in some cases may be offset by certain difficulties inherent in such an informal or-
ganizational structure. LLPs that are accounting or law firms generally must register with
the state licensing authority.
Limited Life An LLP may be ended by the death, retirement, bankruptcy, or incapacity of
a partner. The admission of a new partner to the partnership legally dissolves the former
partnership and establishes a new one.
Mutual Agency Each partner has the authority to act for the limited liability partnership
and to enter into contracts on its behalf. However, acts beyond the normal scope of business
operations, such as the obtaining of a bank loan by a partner, generally do not bind the part-
nership unless specific authority has been given to the partner to enter into such transactions.
Co-Ownership of Partnership Assets and Earnings When individuals invest assets in an
LLP, they retain no claim to those specific assets but acquire an ownership equity in net assets
of the partnership. Every member of an LLP also has an interest in partnership earnings; in
fact, participation in earnings and losses is one of the tests of the existence of a partnership.
Deciding between an LLP and a Corporation

One of the most important considerations in choosing between a limited liability partner-
ship and the corporate form of business organization is the income tax status of the enter-
prise and of its owners. An LLP pays no income tax but is required to file an annual
information return showing its revenue and expenses, the amount of its net income, and
the division of the net income among the partners. The partners report their respective
shares of the ordinary net income from the partnership and such items as dividends and
charitable contributions in their individual income tax returns, regardless of whether they
received more or less than this amount of cash from the partnership during the year.
A corporation is a separate legal entity subject to a corporate income tax. The net income,
when and if distributed to stockholders as dividends, often has been taxable income to stock-
holders. Certain corporations with few stockholders may elect to be taxed as partnerships, pro-
vided their net income or loss is assumed by their stockholders. These corporations file
information returns as do partnerships, and their stockholders report their respective shares of
the year’s net income or loss on individual tax returns. Thus, a limited liability partnership may
incorporate as a Subchapter S Corporation to retain the advantages of limited liability but at the
same time elect to be taxed as a partnership. Income tax rates and regulations are subject to fre-
quent change, and new interpretations of tax laws often arise. The tax status of the owners also
is likely to change from year to year. For these reasons, management of a business enterprise
should review the tax implications of the limited liability partnership and corporate forms of or-
ganization so that the enterprise may adapt most successfully to the income tax environment.
The burden of taxation is not the only factor influencing a choice between the limited li-
ability partnership and the corporate form of organization. Perhaps the factor that most of-
ten tips the scales in favor of incorporation is the opportunity for obtaining larger amounts
of capital when ownership may be divided into shares of capital stock, readily transferable,
and offering the advantages inherent in the separation of ownership and management.
Another reason for choosing the corporate form of organization is the limited liability of
all stockholders for unpaid debts of the corporation.
Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 27
Is the LLP a Separate Entity?

In accounting literature, the legal status of partnerships sometimes has received more em-
phasis than the fact that they are business enterprises. It has been common practice to dis-
tinguish a partnership from a corporation by saying that a partnership is an “association of
persons” and a corporation is a separate entity. Such a distinction stresses the legal form
rather than the economic substance of the business organization. In terms of managerial
policy and business objectives, limited liability partnerships are as much business and ac-
counting entities as are corporations. Limited liability partnerships typically are guided by
long-range plans not likely to be affected by the admission or withdrawal of a single part-
ner. In these firms the accounting policies should reflect the fact that the partnership is an
accounting entity apart from its owners.
Treating the LLP as an economic and accounting entity often will aid in developing fi-
nancial statements that provide the most meaningful presentation of financial position and
results of operations. Among the accounting policies to be stressed is continuity in asset
valuation, despite changes in the income-sharing ratio and changes in ownership. Another
appropriate policy may be recognizing as operating expenses the salaries for personal ser-
vices rendered by partners who also hold managerial positions. In theoretical discussions,
considerable support is found for treating every business enterprise as an accounting entity,
apart from its owners, regardless of the form of organization. A managing partner under
this view is both an employee and an owner, and the salary for the personal services ren-
dered by a partner is an operating expense of the partnership.
The inclusion of partners’ salaries among operating expenses has been opposed by some
accountants on grounds that partners’ salaries may be set at unrealistic levels and that a
partnership is an association of individuals who are owners and not employees of the part-
nership, despite their managerial or other functions.
A limited liability partnership has the characteristics of a separate entity in that it may hold
title to property, may enter into contracts, and in some states may sue or be sued as an entity.
In practice, most accountants treat limited liability partnerships as separate entities with con-
tinuity of accounting policies and asset valuations not interrupted by changes in ownership.
The Partnership Contract

Although a partnership may exist on the basis of an oral agreement or may be implied by
the actions of its members, good business practice requires that the partnership contract be
in writing. The most important points covered in a contract for a limited liability partner-
ship are the following:
1. The date of formation and the planned duration of the partnership, the names of the part-
ners, and the name and business activities of the partnership.
2. The assets to be invested by each partner, the procedure for valuing noncash invest-
ments, and the penalties for a partner’s failure to invest and maintain the agreed amount
of capital.
3. The authority of each partner and the rights and duties of each.
4. The accounting period to be used, the nature of accounting records, financial statements,
and audits by independent public accountants.
5. The plan for sharing net income or loss, including the frequency of income measure-
ment and the distribution of the income or loss among the partners.
6. The salaries and drawings allowed to partners and the penalties, if any, for excessive
withdrawals.
7. Insurance on the lives of partners, with the partnership or surviving partners named as
beneficiaries.
8. Provision for arbitration of disputes and liquidation of the partnership at the end of the
term specified in the contract or at the death or retirement of a partner. Especially im-
portant in avoiding disputes is agreement on procedures such as binding arbitration for
the valuation of the partnership assets and the method of settlement with the estate of a
deceased partner.
One advantage of preparing a partnership contract with the aid of attorneys and accoun-
tants is that the process of reaching agreement on specific issues will develop a better under-
standing among the partners on many issues that might be highly controversial if not settled at
the outset. However, it is seldom possible to cover in a partnership contract every issue that
may later arise. Revision of the partnership contract generally requires the approval of all partners.
Disputes arising among partners that cannot be resolved by reference to the partnership
contract may be settled by binding arbitration or in the courts. A partner who is not satis-
fied with the handling of disputes always has the right to withdraw from the partnership.
Ledger Accounts for Partners

Accounting for an LLP differs from accounting for a single proprietorship or a corporation
with respect to the sharing of net income and losses and the maintenance of the partners’
ledger accounts. Although it might be possible to maintain partnership accounting records
with only one ledger account for each partner, the usual practice is to maintain three types
of accounts. These partnership accounts consist of (1) capital accounts, (2) drawing or per-
sonal accounts, and (3) accounts for loans to and from partners.
The original investment by each partner is recorded by debiting the assets invested, cred-
iting any liabilities assumed by the partnership, and crediting the partner’s capital account
with the current fair value of the net assets (assets minus liabilities) invested. Subsequent
to the original investment, the partner’s equity is increased by additional investments and
by a share of net income; the partner’s equity is decreased by withdrawal of cash or other
assets and by a share of net losses.
Another possible source of increase or decrease in partners’ ownership equity results
from changes in ownership, as described in subsequent sections of this chapter.
The original investment of assets by partners is recorded by credits to the capital ac-
counts; drawings (withdrawals of cash or other assets) by partners in anticipation of net in-
come or drawings that are considered salary allowances are recorded by debits to the
drawing accounts. However, a large withdrawal that is considered a permanent reduction in
the ownership equity of a partner is debited directly to the partner’s capital account.
At the end of each accounting period, the net income or net loss in the partnership’s In-
come Summary ledger account is transferred to the partners’ capital accounts in accordance
with the partnership contract. The debit balances in the drawing accounts at the end of the
period also are closed to the partners’ capital accounts. Because the accounting procedures
for partners’ ownership equity accounts are not subject to state regulations as in the case of
capital stock and other stockholders’ equity accounts of a corporation, deviations from the
procedures described here are possible.
Loans to and from Partners

Occasionally, a partner may receive cash from the limited liability partnership with the in-
tention of repaying this amount. Such a transaction may be debited to the Loans Receivable
from Partners ledger account rather than to the partner’s drawing account.
Conversely, a partner may make a cash payment to the partnership that is considered a
loan rather than an increase in the partner’s capital account balance. This transaction is
recorded by a credit to Loans Payable to Partners and generally is accompanied by the is-
suance of a promissory note. Loans receivable from partners are displayed as assets in the
partnership balance sheet and loans payable to partners are displayed as liabilities. The clas-
sification of these items as current or long-term generally depends on the maturity date, al-
though these related party transactions may result in noncurrent classification of the
partners’ loans, regardless of maturity dates.
If a substantial unsecured loan has been made by a limited liability partnership to a part-
ner and repayment appears doubtful, it is appropriate to offset the receivable against the
partner’s capital account balance. If this is not done, partnership total assets and total part-
ners’ equity may be misleading. In any event, the disclosure principle requires separate list-
ing of any receivables from partners.
Valuation of Investments by Partners

The investment by a partner in the firm often includes assets other than cash. It is impera-
tive that the partners agree on the current fair value of nonmonetary assets at the time of
their investment and that the assets be recognized in the accounting records at such values.
Any gains or losses resulting from the disposal of such assets during the operation of the
partnership, or at the time of liquidation, generally are divided according to the plan for
sharing net income or losses. Therefore, equitable treatment of the individual partners re-
quires a starting point of current fair values recorded for all noncash assets invested in the
firm. Thus, partnership gains or losses from disposal of noncash assets invested by the part-
ners will be measured by the difference between the disposal price and the current fair
value of the assets when invested by partners, adjusted for any depreciation, amortization,
or impairment losses to the date of disposal.
INCOME-SHARING PLANS FOR LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS

Partners’ Equity in Assets versus Share in Earnings
The equity of a partner in the net assets of the limited liability partnership should be dis-
tinguished from a partner’s share in earnings. Thus, to say that David Jones is a one-third
partner is not a clear statement. Jones may have a one-third equity in the net assets of the
partnership but have a larger or smaller share in the net income or losses of the firm. Such
a statement might also be interpreted to mean that Jones was entitled to one-third of the net
income or losses, although his capital account represented much more or much less than
one-third of the total partners’ capital. To state the matter concisely, partners may agree on
any type of income-sharing plan (profit and loss ratio), regardless of the amount of their
respective capital account balances. The Uniform Partnership Act provides that if partners
fail to specify a plan for sharing net income or losses, it is assumed that they intended to
share equally. Because income sharing is of such great importance, it is rare to find a situ-
ation in which the partnership contract is silent on this point.
Division of Net Income or Loss

The many possible plans for sharing net income or loss among partners of a limited liabil-
ity partnership are summarized in the following categories:
1. Equally, or in some other ratio.
2. In the ratio of partners’ capital account balances on a particular date, or in the ratio of
average capital account balances during the year.
3. Allowing interest on partners’ capital account balances and dividing the remaining net
income or loss in a specified ratio.
4. Allowing salaries to partners and dividing the resultant net income or loss in a specified
ratio.
5. Bonus to managing partner based on income.

6. Allowing salaries to partners, allowing interest on capital account balances, and divid-
ing the remaining net income or loss in a specified ratio.
These alternative income-sharing plans emphasize that the value of personal services
rendered by individual partners may vary widely, as may the amounts of capital invested by
each partner. The amount and quality of managerial services rendered and the amount of
capital invested often are important factors in the success or failure of a limited liability
partnership. Therefore, provisions may be made for salaries to partners and interest on their
respective capital account balances as a preliminary step in the division of income or loss.
Any remaining income or loss then may be divided in a specified ratio.
Another factor affecting the success of a limited liability partnership may be that one of
the partners has large personal financial resources, thus giving the partnership a strong credit
rating. Similarly, a partner who is well known in a profession or an industry may make an
important contribution to the success of the partnership without participating actively in the
operations of the partnership. These two factors may be incorporated in the income-sharing
plan by careful selection of the ratio in which any remaining net income or loss is divided.
The following examples show how each of the methods of dividing net income or loss
may be applied. This series of illustrations is based on data for Alb & Bay LLP, which had
a net income of $300,000 for the year ended December 31, 2005, the first fiscal year of
operations. The partnership contract provides that each partner may withdraw $5,000 cash
on the last day of each month; both partners did so during 2005. The drawings are recorded
by debits to the partners’ drawing accounts and are not a factor in the division of net income
or loss; all other withdrawals, investments, and net income or loss are entered directly in the
partners’ capital accounts.
Partner Alb invested $400,000 on January 1, 2005, and an additional $100,000 on April 1.
Partner Bay invested $800,000 on January 1, 2005, and withdrew $50,000 on July 1. These
transactions and events are summarized in the following Capital, Drawing, and Income
Summary ledger accounts:
Ledger Accounts Alb, Capital Bay, Capital

for Alb and Bay
2005 2005 2005
Jan. 1 400,000 July 1 50,000 Jan. 1 800,000
Apr. 1 100,000
Alb, Drawing Bay, Drawing
2005 2005
Jan.–Dec. 60,000 Jan.–Dec. 60,000
Income Summary
2005
Dec. 31 300,000
Division of Earnings Equally or in Some Other Ratio

Many limited liability partnership contracts provide that net income or loss is to be divided
equally. Also, if the partners have made no specific agreement for income sharing, the Uni-
form Partnership Act provides that an intent of equal division is assumed. The net income
of $300,000 for Alb & Bay LLP is transferred by a closing entry on December 31, 2005,
from the Income Summary ledger account to the partners’ capital accounts by the follow-
ing journal entry:
Journal Entry to Close Income Summary 300,000

Income Summary Alb, Capital 150,000
Ledger Account Bay, Capital 150,000
To record division of net income for 2005.
The drawing accounts are closed to the partners’ capital accounts on December 31,
2005, as follows:
Journal Entry to Close Alb, Capital 60,000

Drawing Accounts Bay, Capital 60,000
Alb, Drawing 60,000
Bay, Drawing 60,000
To close drawing accounts.
After the drawing accounts are closed, the balances of the partners’ capital accounts
show the ownership equity of each partner on December 31, 2005.
If Alb & Bay LLP had a net loss of, say, $200,000 during the year ended December 31,
2005, the Income Summary ledger account would have a debit balance of $200,000. This
loss would be transferred to the partners’ capital accounts by a debit to each capital account
for $100,000 and a credit to the Income Summary account for $200,000.
If Alb and Bay share earnings in the ratio of 60% to Alb and 40% to Bay and net income
was $300,000, the net income would be divided $180,000 to Alb and $120,000 to Bay. The
agreement that Alb should receive 60% of the net income (perhaps because of greater
experience and personal contacts) would cause Partner Alb to absorb a larger share of the
net loss if the partnership operated unprofitably. Some partnership contracts provide that a net
income is to be divided in a specified ratio, such as 60% to Alb and 40% to Bay, but that a
net loss is divided equally or in some other ratio. Another variation intended to compensate
for unequal contributions by the partners provides that an agreed ratio (60% and 40% in
this example) shall be applicable to a specified amount of income but that any additional
income shall be shared in some other ratio.
Division of Earnings in Ratio of Partners’ Capital Account Balances

Division of partnership earnings in proportion to the capital invested by each partner is most
likely to be found in limited liability partnerships in which substantial investment is the princi-
pal ingredient for success. To avoid controversy, it is essential that the partnership contract spec-
ify whether the income-sharing ratio is based on (1) the original capital investments, (2) the
capital account balances at the beginning of each year, (3) the balances at the end of each year
(before the division of net income or loss), or (4) the average balances during each year.
Continuing the illustration for Alb & Bay LLP, assume that the partnership contract pro-
vides for division of net income in the ratio of original capital investments. The net income
of $300,000 for 2005 is divided as follows:
Division of Net
Income in Ratio of Alb: $300,000 $400,000$1,200,000 $100,000
Original Capital
Bay: $300,000 $800,000$1,200,000 $200,000
Investments
The journal entry to close the Income Summary ledger account would be similar to the
journal entry illustrated on page 31.
Assuming that the net income is divided in the ratio of capital account balances at the
end of the year (before drawings and the division of net income), the net income of
$300,000 for 2005 is divided as follows:
Division of Net Alb: $300,000 $500,000$1,250,000 $120,000
Income in Ratio of
Bay: $300,000 $750,000$1,250,000 $180,000
End-of-Year Capital
Account Balances Division of net income on the basis of (1) original capital investments, (2) yearly begin-
ning capital account balances, or (3) yearly ending capital account balances may prove in-
equitable if there are material changes in capital accounts during the year. Use of average
balances as a basis for sharing net income is preferable because it reflects the capital actu-
ally available for use by the partnership during the year.
If the partnership contract provides for sharing net income in the ratio of average capi-
tal account balances during the year, it also should state the amount of drawings each part-
ner may make without affecting the capital account. In the example for Alb & Bay LLP, the
partners are entitled to withdraw $5,000 cash monthly. Any additional withdrawals or in-
vestments are entered directly in the partners’ capital accounts and therefore influence the
computation of the average capital ratio. The partnership contract also should state whether
capital account balances are to be computed to the nearest month or to the nearest day.
The computations of average capital account balances to the nearest month and the
division of net income for Alb & Bay LLP for 2005 are as follows:
ALB & BAY LLP

Computation of Average Capital Account Balances
For Year Ended December 31, 2005
Average
Increase Capital Fraction Capital
(Decrease) Account of Year Account
Partner Date in Capital Balance Unchanged Balances
1
Alb Jan. 1 400,000 400,000 ⁄4 100,000
3
Apr.1 100,000 500,000 ⁄4 375,000
475,000
1
Bay Jan. 1 800,000 800,000 ⁄2 400,000
1
July 1 (50,000) 750,000 ⁄2 375,000
775,000
Total average capital account balances for Alb and Bay 1,250,000
Division of net income:
To Alb: $300,000 $475,000/$1,250,000 114,000
To Bay: $300,000 $775,000/$1,250,000 186,000
Total net income 300,000
Interest on Partners’ Capital Account Balances with Remaining

Net Income or Loss Divided in Specified Ratio
In the preceding section, the plan for dividing the entire net income in the ratio of partners’
capital account balances was based on the assumption that invested capital was the domi-
nant factor in the success of the partnership. However, in most cases the amount of invested
capital is only one factor that contributes to the success of the partnership. Consequently,
many partnerships choose to divide only a portion of net income in the capital ratio and to
divide the remainder equally or in some other specified ratio.
To allow interest on partners’ capital account balances at 15%, for example, is the same
as dividing a part of net income in the ratio of partners’ capital balances. If the partners
agree to allow interest on capital as a first step in the division of net income, they should
specify the interest rate to be used and also state whether interest is to be computed on cap-
ital account balances on specific dates or on average capital balances during the year.
Again refer to Alb & Bay LLP with a net income of $300,000 for 2005 and capital ac-
count balances as shown on page 30. Assume that the partnership contract allows interest
on partners’ average capital account balances at 15%, with any remaining net income or
loss to be divided equally. The net income of $300,000 for 2005 is divided as follows:
Division of Net Alb Bay Combined

Income with Interest
Interest on average capital account balances:
Allowed on Average
Alb: $475,000 0.15 $ 71,250 $ 71,250
Capital Account
Bay: $775,000 0.15 $116,250 116,250
Balances
Subtotal $187,500
Remainder ($300,000 $187,500)
divided equally 56,250 56,250 112,500
Totals $127,500 $172,500 $300,000
The journal entry to close the Income Summary ledger account on December 31, 2005,
is similar to the journal entry illustrated on page 31.
As a separate case, assume that Alb & Bay LLP had a net loss of $10,000 for the year
ended December 31, 2005. If the partnership contract provides for allowing interest on cap-
ital accounts, this provision must be enforced regardless of whether operations are prof-
itable or unprofitable. The only justification for omitting the allowance of interest on
partners’ capital accounts during a loss year would be in the case of a partnership contract
containing a specific provision requiring such omission. Note in the following analysis that
the $10,000 debit balance of the Income Summary ledger account resulting from the net
loss is increased by the allowance of interest to $197,500, which is divided equally:
Division of Net Loss Alb Bay Combined

Alb: $475,000 0.15 $ 71,250 $ 71,250
Bay: $775,000 0.15 $116,250 116,250
Subtotal $ 187,500
Resulting deficiency ($10,000 $187,500)
divided equally (98,750) (98,750) 197,500
Totals $ (27,500) $ 17,500 $ (10,000)
The journal entry to close the Income Summary ledger account on December 31, 2005,
is shown below:
Closing the Income Alb, Capital 27,500

Summary Ledger Income Summary 10,000
Account with a Debit Bay, Capital 17,500
Balance To record division of net loss for 2005.
At first thought, the idea that a net loss of $10,000 should cause one partner’s capital to
increase and the other partner’s capital to decrease may appear unreasonable, but there is
sound logic to support this result. Partner Bay invested substantially more capital than did
Partner Alb; this capital was used to carry on operations, and the partnership’s incurring of
a net loss in the first year is no reason to disregard Bay’s larger capital investment.
A significant contrast between two of the income-sharing plans discussed here (the capital-
ratio plan and the interest-on-capital-accounts plan) is apparent if one considers the case of a
partnership operating at a loss. Under the capital-ratio plan, the partner who invested more
capital is required to bear a larger share of the net loss. This result may be considered unrea-
sonable because the investment of capital presumably is not the cause of a net loss. Under the
interest plan of sharing earnings, the partner who invested more capital receives credit for this
factor and is charged with a lesser share of the net loss, or may even end up with a net credit.
Using interest allowances on partners’ capital accounts as a technique for sharing partner-
ship earnings equitably has no effect on the measurement of the net income or loss of the part-
nership. Interest on partners’ capital accounts is not an expense of the partnership, but interest
on loans from partners is recognized as expense and a factor in the measurement of net income
or loss of the partnership. Similarly, interest earned on loans to partners is recognized as part-
nership revenue. This treatment is consistent with the point made on pages 28–29 that loans to
and from partners are assets and liabilities, respectively, of the limited liability partnership.
Another item of expense arising from dealings between a partnership and one of its part-
ners is commonly encountered when the partnership leases property from a lessor who is
also a partner. Rent expense is recognized by the partnership in such situations. The lessor,
although a partner, also is a lessor to the partnership.
Salary Allowance with Resultant Net Income or Loss Divided in Specified Ratio
Salaries and drawings are not the same thing. Because the term salaries suggests weekly or
monthly cash payments for personal services that are recognized as operating expenses by
the limited liability partnership, accountants should be specific in defining the terminology
used in accounting for a partnership. This text uses the term drawings in only one sense: a
withdrawal of cash or other assets that reduces the partner’s equity but has no part in the di-
vision of net income. In the discussion of partnership accounting, the word salaries means
an operating expense included in measuring net income or loss. When the term salaries is
used with this meaning, the division of net income is the same, regardless of whether the
salaries have been paid.
A partnership contract that authorizes partners to make regular withdrawals of specific
amounts should state whether such withdrawals are intended to be a factor in the division
of net income or loss. For example, assume that the contract states that Partner Alb may
make drawings of $3,000 monthly and Partner Bay $8,000. If the intent is not clearly stated
to include or exclude these drawings as an element in the division of net income or loss,
controversy is probable, because one interpretation will favor Partner Alb and the opposing
interpretation will favor Partner Bay.
Assuming that Partner Alb has more experience and ability than Partner Bay and also
devotes more time to the partnership, it seems reasonable that the partners will want to rec-
ognize the more valuable contribution of personal services by Alb in choosing a plan for di-
vision of net income or loss. One approach to this objective would be to adopt an unequal
ratio: for example, 70% of net income or loss to Alb and 30% to Bay. However, the use of
such a ratio usually is not a satisfactory solution, for the same reasons mentioned in criti-
cizing the capital ratio as a profit-sharing plan. A ratio based only on personal services may
not reflect the fact that other factors are important in determining the success of the part-
nership. A second point is that if the partnership incurs a loss, the partner rendering more
personal services will absorb a larger portion of the loss.
A solution to the problem of recognizing unequal personal services by partners is to

provide in the partnership contract for different salaries to partners, with the resultant net
income or loss divided equally or in some other ratio. Applying this reasoning to the
continuing illustration for Alb & Bay LLP, assume that the partnership contract provides for
an annual salary of $100,000 to Alb and $60,000 to Bay, with resultant net income or loss
to be divided equally. The salaries are paid monthly during the year. The net income of
$140,000 for 2005 is divided as follows:
Division of $140,000 Alb Bay Combined

Net Income after
Salaries $100,000 $ 60,000 $160,000
Salaries Expense
Net income ($300,000 $160,000)
divided equally 70,000 70,000 140,000
Totals $170,000 $130,000 $300,000
The following journal entries are required for the foregoing:

1. Monthly journal entries debiting Partners’ Salaries Expense,
$13,333 ($160,000 12 $13,333) and crediting Alb, Capital,
$8,333 ($100,000 12 $8,333) and Bay, Capital,
$5,000 ($60,000 12 $5,000).
2. Monthly journal entries debiting Alb, Drawing, $8,333 and Bay, Drawing, $5,000 and
crediting Cash, $13,333.
3. End-of-year journal entry debiting Income Summary, $140,000, and crediting Alb,
Capital, $70,000 and Bay, Capital, $70,000.
Bonus to Managing Partner Based on Income

A partnership contract may provide for a bonus to the managing partner equal to a speci-
fied percentage of income. The contract should state whether the basis of the bonus is net
income without deduction of the bonus as an operating expense or income after the bonus. For
example, assume that the Alb & Bay LLP partnership contract provides for a bonus to Part-
ner Alb of 25% of net income (without deduction of the bonus) and that the remaining income
is divided equally. The net income is $300,000. After the bonus of $75,000 ($300,000
0.25 $75,000) to Alb, the remaining $225,000 of income is divided $112,500 to Alb and
$112,500 to Bay. Thus, Alb’s share of income is $187,500 ($75,000 $112,500
$187,500), and Bay’s share is $112,500; the bonus is not recognized as an operating expense
of the limited liability partnership.
If the partnership contract provided for a bonus of 25% of income after the bonus to
Partner Alb, the bonus is computed as follows:
Bonus Based on Bonus income after bonus $300,000
Income after Bonus
Let X income after bonus
0.25X bonus
Then 1.25X $300,000 income before bonus
X $300,000 1.25
X $240,000
0.25X $60,000 bonus to Partner Alb1
1
An alternative computation consists of converting the bonus percentage to a fraction. The bonus then may
be computed by adding the numerator to the denominator and applying the resulting fraction to the income
before the bonus. In the preceding example, 25% is converted to 1⁄4; and adding the numerator to the
denominator, the 1⁄4 becomes 1⁄5(4 1 5). One-fifth of $300,000 equals $60,000, the bonus to Partner Alb.
Thus, the prebonus income of $300,000 in this case is divided $180,000 ($60,000
$120,000 $180,000) to Alb and $120,000 to Bay, and the $60,000 bonus is recognized as
an operating expense of the partnership.
The concept of a bonus is not applicable to a net loss. When a limited liability partner-
ship operates at a loss, the bonus provision is disregarded. The partnership contract also
may specify that extraordinary items or other unusual gains and losses are to be excluded
from the basis for the computation of the bonus.
Salaries to Partners with Interest on Capital Accounts

Many limited liability partnerships divide income or loss by allowing salaries to partners
and also interest on their capital account balances. Any resultant net income or loss is di-
vided equally or in some other ratio. Such plans have the merit of recognizing that the
value of personal services rendered by different partners may vary, and that differences
in amounts invested also warrant recognition in an equitable plan for sharing net income
or loss.
To illustrate, assume that the partnership contract for Alb & Bay LLP provides for the
following:
1. Annual salaries of $100,000 to Alb and $60,000 to Bay, recognized as operating expense
of the partnership, with salaries to be paid monthly.
2. Interest on average capital account balances, as computed on page 33.
3. Remaining net income or loss divided equally.
Assuming income of $300,000 for 2005 before annual salaries expense, the $140,000
net income [$300,000 ($100,000 $60,000) $140,000] is divided as follows:
Division of Net Alb Bay Combined

Income after Salaries
Expense
Alb: $475,000 0.15 $71,250 $ 71,250
Bay: $775,000 0.15 $116,250 116,250
Subtotal $187,500
Resulting deficiency ($187,500 $140,000)
divided equally (23,750) (23,750) (47,500)
Totals $47,500 $ 92,500 $140,000
The journal entries to recognize partners’ salaries expense, partners’ withdrawals of the
salaries, and closing of the Income Summary ledger account are similar to those described
on page 35.
Financial Statements for an LLP

Income Statement
Explanations of the division of net income among partners may be included in the part-
nership’s income statement or in a note to the financial statements. This information is re-
ferred to as the division of net income section of the income statement. The following
illustration for Alb & Bay LLP shows, in a condensed income statement for the year ended
December 31, 2005, the division of net income as shown above and the disclosure of
partners’ salaries expense, a related party item:
ALB & BAY LLP

Income Statement
Net sales $3,000,000

Cost of goods sold 1,800,000
Gross margin on sales $1,200,000
Partners’ salaries expense $160,000
Other operating expenses 900,000 1,060,000
Net income $ 140,000
Partner Alb $ 47,500
Partner Bay 92,500
Total $140,000
Note that because a partnership is not subject to income taxes, there is no income taxes
expense in the foregoing income statement. A note to the partnership’s financial statements
may disclose this fact and explain that the partners are taxed for their shares of partnership
income, including their salaries.
Statement of Partners’ Capital

Partners and other users of limited liability partnership financial statements generally want
a complete explanation of the changes in the partners’ capital accounts each year. To meet
this need, a statement of partners’ capital is prepared. The following illustrative statement
of partners’ capital for Alb & Bay LLP is based on the capital accounts presented on page 30
and includes the division of net income illustrated in the foregoing income statement.
ALB & BAY LLP

Partner Alb Partner Bay Combined

Partners’ original investments,
beginning of year $400,000 $800,000 $1,200,000
Additional investment
(withdrawal) of capital 100,000 (50,000) 50,000
Balances before salaries,
net income, and drawings $500,000 $750,000 $1,250,000
Add: Salaries 100,000 60,000 160,000
Net income 47,500 92,500 140,000
Subtotals $647,500 $902,500 $1,550,000
Less: Drawings 100,000 60,000 160,000
Partners’ capital, end of year $547,500 $842,500 $1,390,000
Partners’ capital at end of year is reported as owners’ equity in the December 31, 2005,
balance sheet of the partnership that follows.
Balance Sheet
A condensed balance sheet for Alb & Bay LLP on December 31, 2005, is presented below.
ALB & BAY LLP

Balance Sheet
December 31, 2005
Assets Liabilities and Partners’ Capital

Cash $ 50,000 Trade accounts payable $ 240,000
Trade accounts Long-term debt 370,000
receivable 40,000 Total liabilities $ 610,000
Inventories 360,000 Partners’ capital:
Plant assets (net) 1,550,000 Partner Alb $547,500
Partner Bay 842,500 1,390,000
Total liabilities and
Total assets $2,000,000 partners’ capital $2,000,000
Statement of Cash Flows

A statement of cash flows is prepared for a partnership as it is for a corporation. This fi-
nancial statement, the preparation of which is explained and illustrated in intermediate ac-
counting textbooks, displays the net cash provided by operating activities, net cash used in
investing activities, and net cash provided or used in financing activities of the partnership.
A statement of cash flows for Alb & Bay LLP under the indirect method, which includes the
net income from the income statement on page 37 and the investments and combined draw-
ings from the statement of partners’ capital on page 37, is as follows:
ALB & BAY LLP

Statement of Cash Flows (indirect method)
Cash flows from operating activities:

Net income $ 140,000
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Partners’ salaries expense $ 160,000
Depreciation expense 20,000
Increase in trade accounts receivable (40,000)
Increase in inventories (360,000)
Increase in trade accounts payable 240,000 20,000
Net cash provided by operating activities $ 160,000
Cash flows from investing activities:
Acquisition of plant assets $(1,200,000)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Partners’ investments $1,300,000
Partner’s withdrawal (50,000)
Partners’ drawings (160,000)
Net cash provided by financing activities 1,090,000
Net increase in cash (cash at end of year) $ 50,000
Exhibit I Noncash investing and financing activity:
Capital lease obligation incurred for plant assets $ 370,000
Correction of Partnership Net Income of Prior Period

Any business enterprise, whether it be a single proprietorship, a partnership, or a corpora-
tion, will from time to time discover errors made in the measurement of net income in prior
accounting periods. Examples include errors in the estimation of depreciation, errors in in-
ventory valuation, and omission of accruals of revenue and expenses. When such errors are
discovered, the question arises as to whether the corrections should be treated as part of the
measurement of net income for the current accounting period or as prior period adjust-
ments and entered directly to partners’ capital accounts.
The correction of prior years’ net income is particularly important when the partner-
ship’s income-sharing plan has been changed. For example, assume that in 2005 the net in-
come for Alb & Bay LLP was $300,000 and that the partners shared the net income equally,
but in 2006 they changed the income-sharing ratio to 60% for Alb and 40% for Bay. Dur-
ing 2006 it was determined that the inventories at the end of 2005 were overstated by
$100,000 because of computational errors. The $100,000 reduction in the net income for
2005 should be divided $50,000 to each partner, in accordance with the income-sharing
ratio in effect for 2005, the year in which the error occurred.
Somewhat related to the correction of errors of prior periods is the treatment of nonop-
erating gains and losses. When the income-sharing ratio of a partnership is changed, the
partners should consider the differences that exist between the carrying amounts of assets
and their current fair values. For example, assume that Alb & Bay LLP owns land acquired
for $20,000 that had appreciated in current fair value to $50,000 on the date when the
income-sharing ratio is changed from 50% for each partner to 60% for Alb and 40% for
Bay. If the land were sold for $50,000 just prior to the change in the income-sharing ratio,
the $30,000 gain would be divided $15,000 to Alb and $15,000 to Bay; if the land were sold
immediately after establishment of the 60 : 40 income-sharing ratio, the gain would be di-
vided $18,000 to Alb and only $12,000 to Bay.
A solution sometimes suggested for such partnership problems is to revalue the partner-
ship’s assets to current fair value when the income-sharing ratio is changed or when a new
partner is admitted or a partner retires. In some cases the revaluation of assets may be jus-
tified, but in general the continuity of historical cost valuations in a partnership is desirable
for the same reasons that support the use of that valuation principle in accounting for cor-
porations. A secondary objection to revaluation of assets is that, with a few exceptions such
as marketable securities, satisfactory evidence of current fair value is seldom available. The
best solution to the problem of a change in the ratio of income sharing usually is achieved
by making appropriate adjustments to the partners’ capital accounts rather than by a re-
statement of carrying amounts of assets.
CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OF LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS

Accounting for Changes in Partners
Most changes in the ownership of a limited liability partnership are accomplished without
interruption of its operations. For example, when a large LLP promotes one of its employ-
ees to partner, there is usually no significant change in the finances or operating routines of
the partnership. However, from a legal viewpoint a partnership is dissolved by the retire-
ment or death of a partner or by the admission of a new partner.
Dissolution of a partnership also may result from the bankruptcy of the firm or of any
partner, the expiration of a time period stated in the partnership contract, or the mutual
agreement of the partners to end their association.2 Thus, the term dissolution may be
2
The dissolution of a partnership is defined by the Uniform Partnership Act as “the change in the
relation of the partners caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished
from the winding up of the business.”
used to describe events ranging from a minor change of ownership interest not affecting
operations of the partnership to a decision by the partners to terminate the partnership.
Accountants are concerned with the economic substance of an event rather than with its
legal form. Therefore, they must evaluate all the circumstances of the individual case to de-
termine how a change in partners should be recorded. The following sections of this chapter
describe and illustrate the principal kinds of changes in the ownership of a partnership.
Accounting and Managerial Issues

Although a partnership is ended in a legal sense when a partner withdraws or a new partner
is admitted, the partnership often continues operations with little outward evidence of change.
In current accounting practice, a partner’s interest often is considered a share in the part-
nership that may be transferred, much as shares of a corporation’s capital stock are trans-
ferred among stockholders, without disturbing the continuity of the partnership. For example,
if a partner of a CPA firm retires or a new partner is admitted to the firm, the contract for
the change in ownership should be planned carefully to avoid disturbing client relation-
ships. In a large CPA firm with hundreds of partners, the decision to promote an employee
to the rank of partner generally is made by a committee of partners rather than by action of
all partners.
Changes in the ownership of a partnership raise a number of accounting and managerial
issues on which an accountant may serve as consultant. Among these issues are the setting
of terms for admission of a new partner, the possible revaluation of existing partnership
assets, the development of a new plan for the division of net income or loss, and the deter-
mination of the amount to be paid to a retiring partner.
Admission of a New Partner

When a new partner is admitted to a firm of two or three partners, it is particularly appro-
priate to consider the fairness and adequacy of past accounting policies and the need for
correction of errors in prior years’ accounting data. The terms of admission of a new
partner often are influenced by the level and trend of past earnings, because they may be
indicative of future earnings. Sometimes accounting policies such as the use of the com-
pleted-contract method of accounting for construction-type contracts or the installment method
of accounting for installment sales may cause the accounting records to convey a misleading
impression of earnings in the years preceding the admission of a new partner. Accordingly, ad-
justments of the partnership accounting records may be necessary to restate the carrying
amounts of assets and liabilities to current fair values before a new partner is admitted.
As an alternative to revaluation of the existing partnership assets, it may be preferable to
evaluate any differences between the carrying amounts and current fair values of assets and
adjust the terms for admission of the new partner. In this way, the amount invested by the
incoming partner may be set at a level that reflects the current fair value of the net assets of
the partnership, even though the carrying amounts of existing partnership assets remain un-
changed in the accounting records.
The admission of a new partner to a partnership may be effected either by an acquisition
of all or part of the interest of one or more of the existing partners or by an investment of
assets by the new partner with a resultant increase in the net assets of the partnership.
Acquisition of an Interest by Payment

to One or More Partners
If a new partner acquires an interest from one or more of the existing partners, the event is
recorded by establishing a capital account for the new partner and decreasing the capital ac-
count balances of the selling partners by the same amount. No assets are received by the
partnership; the transfer of ownership is a private transaction between two or more partners.
As an illustration of this situation, assume that Lane and Mull, partners of Lane & Mull
LLP, share net income or losses equally and that each has a capital account balance of
$60,000. Nash (with the consent of Mull) acquires one-half of Lane’s interest in the part-
nership by a cash payment to Lane. The journal entry to record this change in ownership
follows:
Nash Acquires One- Lane, Capital ($60,000 1⁄2) 30,000

Half of Lane’s Interest Nash, Capital 30,000
in Partnership To record transfer of one-half of Lane’s capital to Nash.
The cash paid by Nash for half of Lane’s interest may have been the carrying amount of
$30,000, or it may have been more or less than the carrying amount. Possibly no cash price
was established; Lane may have made a gift to Nash of the equity in the partnership. Re-
gardless of the terms of the transaction between Lane and Nash, the journal entry illustrated
above is all that is required in the partnership’s accounting records; no change has occurred
in the partnership assets, liabilities, or total partners’ capital.
To explore further some of the implications involved in the acquisition of an interest by
a new partner, assume that Nash paid $40,000 to Lane for one-half of Lane’s $60,000 eq-
uity in the partnership. Some accountants have suggested that the willingness of the new
partner to pay $10,000 [$40,000 ($60,000 1⁄2) $10,000] in excess of the carrying
amount for a one-fourth interest in the total capital of the partnership indicates that the to-
tal capital is worth $40,000 ($10,000 0.25 $40,000) more than is shown in the ac-
counting records. They reason that the carrying amounts of partnership assets should be
written up by $40,000, or goodwill of $40,000 should be recognized with offsetting credits
of $20,000 each to the capital accounts of the existing partners, Lane and Mull. However,
most accountants take the position that the payment by Nash to Lane is a personal transac-
tion between them and that the partnership, which has neither received nor distributed any
assets, should prepare no journal entry other than an entry recording the transfer of one-half
of Lane’s capital to Nash.
What are the arguments for these two opposing views? Those who advocate a write-up
of assets stress the legal concept of dissolution of the former partnership and formation of
a new partnership. This change in identity of owners, it is argued, justifies a departure from
the going-concern principle and the revaluation of partnership assets to current fair values
to achieve an accurate measurement of the capital invested by each member of the new
partnership.
The opposing argument, that the acquisition of an interest by a new partner requires
only a transfer from the capital account of the selling partner to the capital account of the
new partner, is based on several points. First, the partnership did not participate in nego-
tiating the price paid by Nash to Lane. Many factors other than the valuation of partner-
ship assets may have been involved in the negotiations between the two individuals.
Perhaps Nash paid more than the carrying amount because Nash was allowed generous
credit terms by Lane or received more than a one-fourth share in partnership net income.
Perhaps the new partner was anxious to join the firm because of the personal abilities of
Lane and Mull or because of the anticipated growth of the partnership. Further, goodwill,
defined as the excess of the cost of an acquired company over the sum of its identifiable
net assets,3 attaches only to a business as a whole.4 For these and other reasons, one may
3
FASB Statement No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” par. F1.
4
Ibid.
conclude that the cash paid for a partnership interest by a new partner to an existing
partner does not provide sufficient evidence to support changes in the carrying amounts of
the partnership’s assets.
Investment in Partnership by New Partner

A new partner may gain admission by investing assets in the limited liability partnership,
thus increasing its total assets and partners’ capital. For example, assume that Wolk and
Yary, partners of Wolk & Yary LLP, share net income or loss equally and that each has a
capital account balance of $60,000. Assume also that the carrying amounts of the partner-
ship assets are approximately equal to current fair values and that Zell owns land that might
be used for expansion of partnership operations. Wolk and Yary agree to admit Zell to the
partnership by investment of the land; net income and losses of the new firm are to be
shared equally. The land had cost Zell $50,000, but has a current fair value of $80,000. The
admission of Zell is recorded by the partnership as follows:
New Partner Invests Land 80,000

Land Zell, Capital 80,000
To record admission of Zell to partnership.
Zell has a capital account balance of $80,000 and thus owns a 40% [$80,000 ($60,000
$60,000 $80,000) 0.40] interest in the net assets of the firm. The fact that the three
partners share net income and losses equally does not require that their capital account bal-
ances be equal.
Bonus or Goodwill Allowed to Existing Partners

In a profitable, well-established firm, the existing partners may insist that a portion of the
investment by a new partner be allocated to them as a bonus or that goodwill be recog-
nized and credited to the existing partners. The new partner may agree to such terms be-
cause of the benefits to be gained by becoming a member of a firm with high earning
power.
Bonus to Existing Partners

Assume that in Cain & Duke LLP, the two partners share net income and losses equally
and have capital account balances of $45,000 each. The carrying amounts of the part-
nership net assets approximate current fair values. The partners agree to admit Eck to a
one-third interest in capital and a one-third share in net income or losses for a cash in-
vestment of $60,000. The net assets of the new firm amount to $150,000 ($45,000
$45,000 $60,000 $150,000). The following journal entry gives Eck a one-third interest
in capital and credits the $10,000 bonus ($60,000 $50,000 $10,000) equally to Cain
and Duke in accordance with their prior contract to share net income and losses equally:
Recording Bonus to Cash 60,000

Existing Partners Cain, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Duke, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Eck, Capital ($150,000 1⁄3) 50,000
To record investment by Eck for a one-third interest in capital,
with bonus of $10,000 divided equally between Cain and Duke.
Goodwill to Existing Partners

In the foregoing illustration, Eck invested $60,000 but received a capital account balance
of only $50,000, representing a one-third interest in the net assets of the firm. Eck might
prefer that the full amount invested, $60,000, be credited to Eck’s capital account. This
might be done while still allotting Eck a one-third interest if goodwill is recognized by the
partnership, with the offsetting credit divided equally between the two existing partners. If
Eck is to be given a one-third interest represented by a capital account balance of $60,000,
the indicated total capital of the partnership is $180,000 ($60,000 3 $180,000), and
the total capital of Cain and Duke must equal $120,000 ($180,000 2⁄3 $120,000). Be-
cause their present combined capital account balances amount to $90,000, a write-up of
$30,000 in the net assets of the partnership is recorded as follows:
Recording Implied Cash 60,000

Goodwill Goodwill ($120,000 $90,000) 30,000
Cain, Capital ($30,000 1⁄2) 15,000
Duke, Capital ($30,000 1⁄2) 15,000
Eck, Capital 60,000
To record investment by Eck for a one-third interest in capital, with credit
offsetting goodwill of $30,000 divided equally between Cain and Duke.
Evaluation of Bonus and Goodwill Methods

When a new partner invests an amount larger than the carrying amount of the interest
acquired, the transaction should be recorded by allowing a bonus to the existing partners.
The bonus method adheres to the valuation principle and treats the partnership as a going
concern.
The alternative method of recording the goodwill implied by the amount invested by
the new partner is not considered acceptable by the author. Use of the goodwill method
signifies the substitution of estimated current fair value of an asset rather than valuation
on a cost basis. The goodwill of $30,000 recognized in the foregoing example was not
paid for by the partnership. Its existence is implied by the amount invested by the new
partner for a one-third interest in the firm. The amount invested by the new partner may
have been influenced by many factors, some of which may be personal rather than eco-
nomic in nature.
Apart from the questionable theoretical basis for such recognition of goodwill, there are
other practical difficulties. The presence of goodwill created in this manner is likely to
evoke criticism of the partnership’s financial statements, and such criticism may cause the
partnership to write off the goodwill.5 Also, if the partnership were liquidated, the goodwill
would have to be written off as a loss.
Fairness of Asset Valuation

In the foregoing examples of bonus or goodwill allowed to the existing partners, it was as-
sumed that the carrying amounts of assets of the partnership approximated current fair val-
ues. However, if land and buildings, for example, have been owned by the partnership for
many years, their carrying amounts and current fair values may be significantly different.
To illustrate this problem, assume that the net assets of Cain & Duke LLP, carried at
$90,000, were estimated to have a current fair value of $120,000 at the time of admission
5
As indicated on page 41, only acquired goodwill should be recognized, and, as explained in Chapter 5,
it currently must be written off, in whole or in part, when it is determined to be impaired.
of Eck as a partner. The previous example required Eck to receive a one-third interest in
partnership net assets for an investment of $60,000. Why not write up the partnership’s
identifiable assets from $90,000 to $120,000, with a corresponding increase in the capital
account balances of the existing partners? Neither a bonus nor the recognition of goodwill
then would be necessary to record the admission of Eck with a one-third interest in net as-
sets for an investment of $60,000 because this investment is equal to one-third of the total
partnership capital of $180,000 ($120,000 $60,000 $180,000).
Such restatement of asset values would not be acceptable practice in a corporation when
the market price of its capital stock had risen. If one assumes the existence of certain con-
ditions in a partnership, adherence to cost as the basis for asset valuation is as appropriate
a policy as for a corporation. These specific conditions are that the income-sharing ratio
should be the same as the share of equity of each partner and that the income-sharing ratio
should continue unchanged. When these conditions do not exist, a restatement of net assets
from carrying amount to current fair value may be the best way of achieving equity among
the partners.
Bonus or Goodwill Allowed to New Partner

A new partner may be admitted to a limited liability partnership because it needs cash or
because the new partner has valuable skills and business contacts. To ensure the admission
of the new partner, the present firm may offer the new partner a larger equity in net assets
than the amount invested by the new partner.
Bonus to New Partner

Assume that the two partners of Farr & Gold LLP, who share net income and losses equally
and have capital account balances of $35,000 each, offer Hart a one-third interest in net as-
sets and a one-third share of net income or losses for an investment of $20,000 cash. Their
offer is based on a need for more cash and on the conviction that Hart’s personal skills and
business contacts will be valuable to the partnership. The investment of $20,000 by Hart,
when added to the existing capital of $70,000, gives total capital of $90,000 ($20,000
$70,000 $90,000), of which Hart is entitled to one-third, or $30,000 ($90,000 1⁄3
$30,000). The excess of Hart’s capital account balance over the amount invested represents
a $10,000 bonus ($30,000 $20,000 $10,000) allowed to Hart by Farr and Gold. Be-
cause those partners share net income or losses equally, the $10,000 bonus is debited to
their capital accounts in equal amounts, as shown by the following journal entry to record
the admission of Hart to the partnership:
Recording Bonus to Cash 20,000

New Partner Farr, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Gold, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Hart, Capital 30,000
To record admission of Hart, with bonus of $10,000 from Farr and Gold.
In outlining this method of accounting for the admission of Hart, it is assumed that the
net assets of the partnership were valued properly. If the admission of the new partner to a
one-third interest for an investment of $20,000 was based on recognition that the net assets
of the existing partnership were worth only $40,000, consideration should be given to writ-
ing down net assets by $30,000 ($70,000 $40,000 $30,000). Such write-downs would
be appropriate if, for example, trade accounts receivable included doubtful accounts or if
inventories were obsolete.
Goodwill to New Partner

Assume that the new partner Hart is the owner of a successful single proprietorship that Hart
invests in the partnership rather than making an investment in cash. Using the same data as in
the preceding example, assume that Farr and Gold, with capital account balances of $35,000
each, give Hart a one-third interest in net assets and net income or losses. The identifiable tan-
gible and intangible net assets of the proprietorship owned by Hart are worth $20,000, but, be-
cause of its superior earnings record, a current fair value for the total net assets is agreed to
be $35,000. The admission of Hart to the partnership is recorded as shown below:
New Partner Invests Identifiable Tangible and Intangible Net Assets 20,000
Single Proprietorship Goodwill ($35,000 $20,000) 15,000
with Goodwill Hart, Capital 35,000
To record admission of Hart; goodwill is attributable to superior
earnings of single proprietorship invested by Hart.
The point to be stressed is that generally goodwill is recognized as part of the investment
of a new partner only when the new partner invests in the partnership a business enterprise
of superior earning power. If Hart is admitted for a cash investment and is credited with a
capital account balance larger than the cash invested, the difference should be recorded as
a bonus to Hart from the existing partners, or undervalued tangible or identifiable intangi-
ble assets should be written up to current fair value. Goodwill should be recognized only
when substantiated by objective evidence, such as the acquisition of a profitable business
enterprise.
Retirement of a Partner
A partner retiring from a limited liability partnership usually receives cash or other assets
from the partnership. It is also possible that a retiring partner might arrange for the sale of
his or her partnership interest to one or more of the continuing partners or to an outsider.
Because the accounting principles applicable to the latter situation already have been con-
sidered, the discussion of the retirement of a partner is limited to the situation in which the
retiring partner receives assets of the partnership.
An assumption underlying this discussion is that the retiring partner has a right to with-
draw under the terms of the partnership contract. A partner always has the power to
withdraw, as distinguished from the right to withdraw. A partner who withdraws in viola-
tion of the terms of the partnership contract, and without the consent of the other partners,
may be liable for damages to the other partners.
Computation of the Settlement Price
What is a fair measurement of the equity of a retiring partner? A first indication is the re-
tiring partner’s capital account balance, but this amount may need to be adjusted before it
represents an equitable settlement price. Adjustments may include the correction of errors
in accounting data or the recognition of differences between carrying amounts of partner-
ship net assets and their current fair values. Before making any adjustments, the accountant
should refer to the partnership contract, which may contain provisions for computing the
amount to be paid to a retiring partner. For example, these provisions might require an
appraisal of assets, an audit by independent public accountants, or a valuation of the part-
nership as a going concern according to a prescribed formula. If the partnership has not
maintained accurate accounting records or has not been audited, it is possible that the
partners’ capital account balances are misstated because of incorrect depreciation expense,
failure to provide for doubtful accounts expense, and other accounting deficiencies.
If the partnership contract does not contain provisions for the computation of the retir-
ing partner’s equity, the accountant may obtain written authorization from the partners to
use a specific method to determine an equitable settlement price.
In most cases, the equity of the retiring partner is computed on the basis of current fair
values of partnership net assets. The gain or loss indicated by the difference between the
carrying amounts of assets and their current fair values is divided in the income-sharing ra-
tio. After the equity of the retiring partner has been computed in terms of current fair val-
ues for assets, the partners may agree to settle by payment of this amount, or they may
agree on a different amount. The computation of an estimated current fair value for the re-
tiring partner’s equity is a necessary step in reaching a settlement. An independent decision
is made whether to recognize the current fair values and the related changes in partners’
capital in the partnership’s accounting records.
Bonus to Retiring Partner

The partnership contract may provide for the computation of internally generated goodwill
at the time of a partner’s retirement and may specify the methods for computing the good-
will. Generally, the amount of the computed goodwill is allocated to the partners in the
income-sharing ratio. For example, assume that partner Lund is to retire from Jorb, Kent &
Lund LLP. Each partner has a capital account balance of $60,000, and net income and
losses are shared equally. The partnership contract provides that a retiring partner is to re-
ceive the balance of the retiring partner’s capital account plus a share of any internally gen-
erated goodwill. At the time of Lund’s retirement, goodwill in the amount of $30,000 is
computed to the mutual satisfaction of the partners. In the opinion of the author, this
goodwill should not be recognized in the accounting records of the partnership by a
$30,000 debit to Goodwill and a $10,000 credit to each partner’s capital account.
Serious objections exist to recording goodwill as determined in this fashion. Because
only $10,000 of the goodwill is included in the payment for Lund’s equity, the remaining
$20,000 of goodwill has not been paid for by the partnership. Its display in the balance
sheet of the partnership is not supported by either the valuation principle or reliable evi-
dence. The fact that the partners “voted” for $30,000 of goodwill does not meet the need for
reliable evidence of asset values. As an alternative, it would be possible to recognize only
$10,000 of goodwill and credit Lund’s capital account for the same amount, because this
amount was paid for by the partnership as a condition of Lund’s retirement. This method is
perhaps more justifiable, but reliable evidence that goodwill exists still is lacking. (As in-
dicted on page 41, FASB Statement No. 142, “Accounting for Goodwill . . . ,” provides that
goodwill attaches only to a business as a whole and is recognized only when a business is
acquired.) The most satisfactory method of accounting for the retirement of partner Lund is
to record the amount paid to Lund for goodwill as a $10,000 bonus. Because the settlement
with Lund is for the balance of Lund’s capital account of $60,000, plus estimated goodwill
of $10,000, the following journal entry to record Lund’s retirement is recommended:
Bonus Paid to Retiring Lund, Capital 60,000

Partner Jorb, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Kent, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Cash 70,000
To record payment to retiring partner Lund, including a bonus of $10,000.
The bonus method illustrated here is appropriate whenever the settlement with the
retiring partner exceeds the carrying amount of that partner’s capital. The agreement for
settlement may or may not use the term goodwill; the essence of the matter is the determi-
nation of the amount to be paid to the retiring partner.
Bonus to Continuing Partners
A partner anxious to escape from an unsatisfactory business situation may accept less than
his or her partnership equity on retirement. In other cases, willingness by a retiring partner
to accept a settlement below carrying amount may reflect personal problems. Another pos-
sible explanation is that the retiring partner considers the net assets of the partnership to be
overvalued or anticipates less partnership net income in future years.
In brief, there are many factors that may induce a partner to accept less than the carry-
ing amount of his or her capital account balance on withdrawal from the partnership. Be-
cause a settlement below carrying amount seldom is supported by objective evidence of
overvaluation of assets, the preferred accounting treatment is to leave net asset valuations
undisturbed unless a large amount of impaired goodwill is carried in the accounting
records as a result of the prior admission of a partner as described on page 45. The differ-
ence between the retiring partner’s capital account balance and the amount paid in settle-
ment should be allocated as a bonus to the continuing partners.
For example, assume that the three partners of Merz, Noll & Park LLP share net in-
come or losses equally, and that each has a capital account balance of $60,000. Noll retires
from the partnership and receives $50,000. The journal entry to record Noll’s retirement
follows:
Bonus to Continuing Noll, Capital 60,000

Partners Cash 50,000
Merz, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
Park, Capital ($10,000 1⁄2) 5,000
To record retirement of Partner Noll for an amount less than carrying
amount of Noll’s equity, with a bonus to continuing partners.
The final settlement with a retiring partner often is deferred for some time after the part-
ner’s withdrawal to permit the accumulation of cash, the measurement of net income to date
of withdrawal, the obtaining of bank loans, or other acts needed to complete the transaction.
Death of a Partner
Limited liability partnership contracts often provide that partners shall acquire life insur-
ance policies on each others’ lives so that cash will be available for settlement with the es-
tate of a deceased partner. A buy-sell agreement may be formed by the partners, whereby
the partners commit their estates to sell their equities in the partnership and the surviving
partners to acquire such equities. Another form of such an agreement gives the surviving
partners an option to buy, or right of first refusal, rather than imposing on the partnership
an obligation to acquire the deceased partner’s equity.
LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS
The legal provisions governing limited partnerships (not to be confused with limited lia-
bility partnerships) are provided by the Uniform Limited Partnership Act. Among the fea-
tures of a limited partnership are the following:
1. There must be at least one general partner, who has unlimited liability for unpaid debts
of the partnership.
2. Limited partners have no obligation for unpaid liabilities of the limited partnership; only
general partners have such liability.
3. Limited partners have no participation in the management of the limited partnership.
4. Limited partners may invest only cash or other assets in a limited partnership; they may
not provide services as their investment.
5. The surname of a limited partner may not appear in the name of the partnership.
6. The formation of a limited partnership is evidenced by a certificate filed with the
county recorder of the principal place of business of the limited partnership. The cer-
tificate includes many of the items present in the typical partnership contract of a lim-
ited liability partnership (see pages 27–28); in addition, it must include the name and
residence of each general partner and limited partner; the amount of cash and other
assets invested by each limited partner; provision for return of a limited partner’s in-
vestment; any priority of one or more limited partners over other limited partners; and
any right of limited partners to vote for election or removal of general partners, termi-
nation of the partnership, amendment of the certificate, or disposal of all partnership
assets.
Membership in a limited partnership is offered to prospective limited partners in units

subject to the Securities Act of 1933. Thus, unless provisions of that Act exempt a lim-
ited partnership, it must file a registration statement for the offered units with the Secu-
rities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and undertake to file periodic reports with the
SEC. The SEC has provided guidance for such registration and reporting in Industry
Guide 5: Preparation of Registration Statements Relating to Interests in Real Estate
Limited Partnerships.
Large limited partnerships that engage in ventures such as oil and gas exploration and
real estate development and issue units registered with the SEC are termed master limited
partnerships.
Accounting for Limited Partnerships

The accounting for business transactions and events of limited partnerships parallels the ac-
counting for limited liability partnerships, except that limited partners do not have periodic
drawings debited to a Drawing ledger account. With respect to additions and retirements of
limited partners, who may be numerous, the limited partnership should maintain a sub-
sidiary limited partners’ ledger, similar to the stockholders’ ledger of a corporation, with
capital accounts for each limited partner showing investment units, increases for net in-
come and decreases for net losses, and decreases for retirements.
Financial Statements for Limited Partnerships

In Staff Accounting Bulletin 40, the SEC provided standards for financial statements of
limited partnerships filed with the SEC, as follows.6
The equity section of a [limited] partnership balance sheet should distinguish between
amounts ascribed to each ownership class. The equity attributed to the general partners
should be stated separately from the equity of the limited partners, and changes in the num-
ber of equity units . . . outstanding should be shown for each ownership class. A statement of
changes in partnership equity for each ownership class should be furnished for each period
for which an income statement is included.
6
Staff Accounting Bulletin 40, Topic F, Securities and Exchange Commission (Washington, DC: 1981).
The income statements of [limited] partnerships should be presented in a manner which

clearly shows the aggregate amount of net income (loss) allocated to the general partners and
the aggregate amount allocated to the limited partners. The statement of income should also
state the results of operations on a per unit basis.
Although the foregoing standards are mandatory only for limited partnerships subject to the
SEC’s jurisdiction, they are appropriate for other limited partnerships.
To illustrate financial statements for a limited partnership, assume that Wesley Randall
formed Randall Company, a limited partnership that was exempt from the registration re-
quirements of the Securities Act of 1933. On January 2, 2005, Wesley Randall, the general
partner, acquired 30 units at $1,000 a unit, and 30 limited partners acquired a total of 570 units
at $1,000 a unit. The limited partnership certificate for Randall Company provided that lim-
ited partners might withdraw their net equity (investment plus net income less net loss) only
on December 31 of each year. Wesley Randall was authorized to withdraw $500 a month at
his discretion, but he had no drawings during 2005. Randall Company had a net income of
$90,000 for 2005, and on December 31, 2005, two limited partners withdrew their entire
equity interest of 40 units.
The following condensed financial statements (excluding a statement of cash flows) in-
corporate the foregoing assumptions and comply with the provisions of Staff Accounting
Bulletin 40:
RANDALL COMPANY (a limited partnership)

Income Statement
Revenue $400,000
Costs and expenses 310,000
Net income $ 90,000
Division of net income ($150* per unit based on 600
weighted-average units outstanding):
To general partner (30 units) $ 4,500
To limited partners (570 units) 85,500
Total $90,000
*$90,000 600 units outstanding throughout 2005 $150.

General Partner Limited Partners Combined
Units Amount Units Amount Units Amount
Initial investments, beginning of year 30 $30,000 570 $570,000 600 $600,000

Add: Net income 4,500 85,500 90,000
Subtotals 30 $34,500 570 $655,500 600 $690,000
Less: Redemption of units 40 46,000* 40 46,000
Partners’ capital, end of year 30 $34,500 530 $609,500 560 $644,000
*(40 $1,000) (40 $150) $46,000.


Balance Sheet
December 31, 2005

Current assets $ 240,000 Current liabilities $ 100,000
Other assets 760,000 Long-term debt 256,000
Total liabilities $ 356,000
Partners’ capital ($1,150*
per unit based on 560
units outstanding):
General partner $ 34,500
Limited partners 609,500 644,000
Total liabilities and
Total assets $1,000,000 partners’ capital $1,000,000
*$644,000 560 $1,150.
SEC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS DEALING WITH

WRONGFUL APPLICATION OF ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS FOR PARTNERSHIPS
In 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated a series of Accounting
and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs) to report its enforcement actions involving
accountants. Following are summaries of two AAERs dealing with violations of account-
ing standards for partnerships.
AAER 202
AAER 202, “Securities and Exchange Commission v. William A. MacKay and Muncie A.
Russell” (September 29, 1988), deals with a general partnership formed by the former chief
executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer (CFO) (a CPA) of American Biomateri-
als Corporation, a manufacturer of medical and dental products. The SEC alleged that the
partnership, Kirkwood Associates, ostensibly an executive search firm, had received more
than $410,000 from American Biomaterials for nonexistent services. The partnership had
no offices or employees, and its telephone number and address were those of a telephone
answering and mail collection service. Although its CEO and CFO directly benefited from
the $410,000 payments, American Biomaterials did not disclose this related-party trans-
action in its report to the SEC. The CEO and the CFO, without admitting or denying the
SEC’s allegations, consented to the federal court’s permanently enjoining them from vio-
lating the federal securities laws.
AAER 214
In AAER 214, “Securities and Exchange Commission v. Avanti Associates First Mortgage
Fund 84 Limited Partnership et al.” (January 11, 1989), the SEC reported on a federal
court’s entry of a permanent injunction against the general partner (a CPA) of a limited
partnership that in turn was the general partner of a second limited partnership that made
and acquired short-term first mortgage loans on real property. According to the SEC, the
financial statements of the second limited partnership, filed with the SEC in Form 10-K, in-
cluded a note that falsely reported the amount and nature of a related-party transaction.
Correct reporting of the related-party transaction would have disclosed that the CPA had
improperly profited from a kickback scheme involving payments made by borrowers from
the limited partnership to a distant relative of the CPA. In a related enforcement action, re-
ported in AAER 220, “. . . In the Matter of Richard P. Franke . . .” (March 24, 1989), the
SEC permanently prohibited appearing or practicing before it by the CPA who had ostensi-
bly audited the limited partnership’s financial statements that were included in Form 10-K.
Review 1. In the formation of a limited liability partnership, partners often invest nonmonetary
assets such as land, buildings, and machinery, as well as cash. Should nonmonetary as-
Questions sets be recognized by the partnership at current fair value, at cost to the partners, or at
some other amount? Explain.
2. Some large CPA firms have thousands of staff members, and hundreds of partners, and
operate on a national or an international basis. Would the professional corporation
form of organization be more appropriate than the limited liability partnership form for
such large organizations? Explain.
3. Explain the limited liability partnership balance sheet display of loans to and from
partners and the accounting for interest on such loans.
4. Explain how partners’ salaries should be displayed in the income statement of a lim-
ited liability partnership, if at all.
5. List at least five items that should be included in a limited liability partnership
contract.
6. List at least five methods by which net income or losses of a limited liability partner-
ship may be divided among partners.
7. Ainsley & Burton LLP admitted Paul Craig to a one-third interest in the firm for his
investment of $50,000. Does this mean that Craig would be entitled to one-third of the
partnership’s net income or losses?
8. Duncan and Eastwick are negotiating a partnership contract, with Duncan to invest
$60,000 and Eastwick $20,000 in the limited liability partnership. Duncan suggests
that interest at 8% be allowed on average capital account balances and that any re-
maining net income or losses be divided in the ratio of average capital account bal-
ances. Eastwick prefers that the entire net income or losses be divided in the ratio of
average capital account balances. Comment on these proposals.
9. The partnership contract of Peel & Quay LLP is brief on the sharing of net income and
losses. It states: “Net income is to be divided 80% to Peel and 20% to Quay, and each
partner is entitled to draw $2,000 a month.” What difficulties do you foresee in imple-
menting this contract? Illustrate possible difficulties under the assumption that the
partnership had a net income of $100,000 in the first year of operations.
10. Muir and Miller operated Muir & Miller LLP for several years, sharing net income and
losses equally. On January 1, 2005, they agreed to revise the income-sharing ratio to
70% for Muir and 30% for Miller, because of Miller’s desire for semiretirement. On
March 1, 2005, the partnership received $10,000 in settlement of a disputed amount re-
ceivable on a contract completed in 2004. Because the outcome of the dispute had been
uncertain, no trade account receivable had been recognized. Explain the accounting
treatment you would recommend for the $10,000 cash receipt.
11. Should the carrying amounts of a limited liability partnership’s assets be restated to
current fair values when a partner retires or a new partner is admitted to the firm?
Explain.
12. A new partner admitted to a limited liability partnership often is required to invest an
amount of cash larger than the carrying amount of the interest in net assets the new
partner acquires. In what way might such a transaction be recorded? What is the prin-
cipal argument for each method?
13. Two partners invested $2,000 each to form a limited liability partnership for the con-
struction of a shopping center. The partnership obtained a bank loan of $800,000 to fi-
nance construction, but no payment on this loan was due for two years. Each partner
withdrew $50,000 cash from the partnership from the proceeds of the loan. How
should the investment of $4,000 and the withdrawal of $100,000 be displayed in the fi-
nancial statements of the partnership?
14. A CPA firm was asked to express an auditors’ opinion on the financial statements of a
limited partnership in which a corporation was the general partner. Should the finan-
cial statements of the limited partnership and the auditors’ report thereon include the
financial statements of the general partner?
15. How do the financial statements of a limited partnership differ from those of a limited
liability partnership?
16. Differentiate between a limited liability partnership (LLP) and a limited partnership.
Exercises
(Exercise 2.1) Select the best answer for each of the following multiple-choice questions:
1. The partnership contract of Lowell & Martin LLP provided for salaries of $45,000 to
Lowell and $35,000 to Martin, with any remaining income or loss divided equally.
During 2005, pre-salaries income of Lowell & Martin LLP was $100,000, and both
Lowell and Martin withdrew cash from the partnership equal to 80% of their salary
allowances. During 2005, Lowell’s equity in the partnership:
a. Increased more than Martin’s equity.
b. Decreased more than Martin’s equity.
c. Increased the same amount as Martin’s equity.
d. Decreased the same amount as Martin’s equity.
2. When Andrew Davis retired from Davis, Evans & Fell LLP, he received cash in excess
of his capital account balance. Under the bonus method, the excess cash received by
Davis:
a. Reduced the capital account balances of Evans and Fell.
b. Had no effect on the capital account balances of Evans and Fell.
c. Was recognized as goodwill of the partnership.
d. Was recognized as an operating expense of the partnership.
3. A large cash withdrawal by Partner Davis from Carr, Davis, Exley & Fay LLP, which
is viewed by all partners as a permanent reduction of Davis’s ownership equity in the
partnership, is recorded with a debit to:
a. Loan Receivable from Davis.
b. Davis, Drawing.
c. Davis, Capital.
d. Retained Earnings.
4. The partnership contract for Gore & Haines LLP provided that Gore is to receive an
annual salary of $60,000, Haines is to receive an annual salary of $40,000, and the
net income or loss (after partners’ salaries expense) is to be divided equally between
the two partners. Net income of Gore & Haines LLP for the fiscal year ended Decem-
ber 31, 2005, was $90,000. The appropriate closing entry for net income on December 31,
2005, is a debit to Income Summary for $90,000 and credits to Gore, Capital and
Haines, Capital, respectively, of:
a. $54,000 and $36,000.
b. $55,000 and $35,000.
c. $45,000 and $45,000.
d. Some other amounts.
5. Which of the following is an expense of a limited liability partnership?
a. Interest on partners’ capital account balances.
b. Interest on loans from partners to the partnership.
c. Both a and b .
d. Neither a nor b .
6. The CPA partners of Tan, Ullman & Valdez LLP shared net income and losses 25%,
35%, and 40%, respectively. On January 31, 2006, by mutual consent of the partners,
Julio Valdez withdrew from the partnership, receiving $162,000 for his $150,000 cap-
ital account balance. The preferable journal entry (explanation omitted) for the part-
nership on January 31, 2006, is:
(a) Valdez, Capital 150,000

Tan, Capital ($12,000 25/60) 5,000
Ullman, Capital ($12,000 35/60) 7,000
Cash 162,000
(b) Valdez, Capital 162,000
Goodwill 12,000
Valdez, Capital ($162,000 $150,000) 12,000
Cash 162,000
(c) Goodwill ($12,000 0.40) 30,000
Valdez, Capital 162,000
Tan, Capital ($30,000 0.25) 7,500
Ullman, Capital ($30,000 0.35) 10,500
Valdez, Capital ($30,000 0.40) 12,000
Cash 162,000
(d) Valdez, Capital ($12,000 0.40) 4,800
Valdez, Capital ($150,000 $4,800) 145,200
Tan, Capital ($12,000 0.25) 3,000
Ullman, Capital ($12,000 0.35) 4,200
Loss on Withdrawal of Partner 4,800
Cash 162,000
7. The two partners of Adonis & Brutus LLP share net income and losses in the ratio of
7 : 3, respectively. On February 1, 2005, their capital account balances were as follows:
Adonis $70,000
Brutus 60,000
Adonis and Brutus agreed to admit Cato as a partner on February 1, 2005, with a one-
third interest in the partnership capital and net income or losses for an investment
of $50,000. The new partnership will begin with total capital of $180,000. Immediately
after Cato’s admission to the partnership, the capital account balances of Adonis,
Brutus, and Cato, respectively, are:
a. $60,000, $60,000, $60,000.
b. $63,000, $57,000, $60,000.
c. $63,333, $56,667, $60,000.
d. $70,000, $60,000, $50,000.
e. Some other amounts.
8. According to this text, the recognition of goodwill in the accounting records of a lim-
ited liability partnership may be appropriate for:
a. The admission of a new partner for a cash investment.
b. The retirement of an existing partner.
c. Either of the foregoing situations.
d. Neither of the foregoing situations.
9. The partnership contract for Clark & Davis LLP provides that “net income or losses
are to be distributed in the ratio of partners’ capital account balances.” The appro-
priate interpretation of this provision is that net income or losses should be distrib-
uted in:
a. The ratio of beginning capital account balances.
b. The ratio of average capital account balances.
c. The ratio of ending account balances (before distribution of net income or loss).
d. One of the foregoing methods to be specified by partners Clark and Davis.
10. Salaries to partners of a limited liability partnership typically should be accounted
for as:
a. A device for sharing net income.
b. An operating expense of the partnership.
c. Drawings by the partners from the partnership.
d. Reductions of the partners’ capital account balances.
11. The income-sharing provision of the contract that established Early & Farber LLP pro-
vided that Early was to receive a bonus of 20% of income after deduction of the bonus,
with the remaining income distributed 40% to Early and 60% to Farber. If income be-
fore the bonus of Early & Farber LLP was $240,000 for the fiscal year ended August 31,
2005, the capital accounts of Early and Farber should be credited, respectively, in the
amounts of:
a. $120,000 and $120,000.
b. $124,800 and $115,200.
c. $96,000 and $144,000.
d. $163,200 and $76,800.
e. Some other amounts.
12. Which of the following typical expense of a corporation is not relevant for a limited
liability partnership?
a. Salaries expense.
b. Interest expense.
c. Income taxes expense.
d. Pension expense.
e. None of the above.
13. Are the results of operations on a per unit basis displayed in the income statement of a:
Limited Liability Partnership? Limited Partnership?

a. Yes Yes
b. Yes No
c. No Yes
d. No No
(Exercise 2.2) On January 2, 2005, Carle and Dody established Carle & Dody LLP, with Carle investing
$80,000 and Dody investing $70,000 on that date. The income-sharing provisions of the
partnership contract were as follows:
CHECK FIGURE 1. Salaries of $30,000 per annum to each partner.
Credit Dody, capital, 2. Interest at 6% per annum on beginning capital account balances of each partner.
a total of $9,975.
3. Remaining income or loss divided equally.
Pre-salary income of Carle & Dody LLP for the month of January 2005 was $20,000. Nei-
ther partner had a drawing for that month.
Prepare journal entries for Carle & Dody LLP on January 31, 2005, to provide for part-
ners’ salaries and close the Income Summary ledger account. Show supporting computa-
tions in the explanations for the entries.
(Exercise 2.3) Activity in the capital accounts of the partners of Webb & Yu LLP for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005, follows:
CHECK FIGURE
Webb, Capital Yu, Capital
b. Net income to Yu,
$28,000. Balances, Jan. 1 $40,000 $80,000
Investment, July 1 20,000
Withdrawal, Oct. 1 40,000
Net income of Webb & Yu LLP for the year ended December 31, 2005, amounted to
$48,000.
Prepare a working paper to compute the division of the $48,000 net income of Webb &
Yu LLP under each of the following assumptions:
a. The partnership contract is silent as to sharing of net income and losses.
b. Net income and losses are divided on the basis of average capital account balances (not
including the net income or loss for the current year).
c. Net income and losses are divided on the basis of beginning capital account balances.
d. Net income and losses are divided on the basis of ending capital account balances (not
including the net income or loss for the current year).
(Exercise 2.4) The partnership contract of Ray, Stan & Todd LLP provided that Ray was to receive a bonus
equal to 20% of income and that the remaining income or loss was to be divided 40% each
to Ray and Stan and 20% to Todd. Income of Ray, Stan & Todd LLP for 2005 (before the
bonus) amounted to $127,200.
Explain two alternative ways in which the bonus provision might be interpreted, and pre-
pare a working paper to compute the division of the $127,200 income of Ray, Stan & Todd
LLP for 2005 under each interpretation.
(Exercise 2.5) The partnership contract of Jones, King & Lane LLP provided for the division of net in-
come or losses in the following manner:
CHECK FIGURE 1. Bonus of 20% of income before the bonus to Jones.
Net income to Jones, 2. Interest at 15% on average capital account balances to each partner.
$27,000.
3. Residual income or loss equally to each partner.
Net income of Jones, King & Lane LLP for 2005 was $90,000, and the average capital
account balances for that year were Jones, $100,000; King, $200,000; and Lane,
$300,000.
Prepare a working paper to compute each partner’s share of the 2005 net income of
Jones, King & Lane LLP.
(Exercise 2.6) The partnership contract of Ann, Bud & Cal LLP provides for the remuneration of partners
as follows:
CHECK FIGURE 1. Salaries of $40,000 to Ann, $35,000 to Bud, and $30,000 to Cal, to be recognized annu-
Debit bonus expense, ally as operating expense of the partnership in the measurement of net income.
$10,000. 2. Bonus of 10% of income after salaries and the bonus to Ann.
3. Remaining net income or loss 30% to Ann, 20% to Bud, and 50% to Cal.
Income of Ann, Bud & Cal LLP before partners’ salaries and Ann’s bonus was $215,000 for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.
Prepare journal entries for Ann, Bud & Cal LLP on December 31, 2005, to (1) accrue
partners’ salaries and Ann’s bonus and (2) close the Income Summary ledger account
(credit balance of $100,000) and divide the net income among the partners. Show support-
ing computations in the explanation for the second journal entry.
(Exercise 2.7) The partnership contract for Bates & Carter LLP provided for salaries to partners and the
division of net income or losses as follows:
CHECK FIGURE 1. Salaries of $40,000 a year to Bates and $60,000 a year to Carter.
Net income to Bates, 2. Interest at 12% a year on beginning capital account balances.
$42,400.
3. Remaining net income or loss 70% to Bates and 30% to Carter.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, Bates & Carter LLP had presalaries income
of $200,000. Capital account balances on January 1, 2005, were $400,000 for Bates and
$500,000 for Carter; Bates invested an additional $100,000 in the partnership on Septem-
ber 30, 2005. In accordance with the partnership contract, both partners drew their salary
allowances in cash from the partnership during the year.
Prepare journal entries for Bates & Carter LLP on December 31, 2005, to (1) accrue
partners’ salaries and (2) close the Income Summary (credit balance of $100,000) and
drawing accounts. Show supporting computations in the journal entry closing the Income
Summary account.
(Exercise 2.8) Emma Neal and Sally Drew are partners of Neal & Drew LLP sharing net income or losses
equally; each has a capital account balance of $200,000. Sally Drew (with the consent of
Neal) sold one-fifth of her interest to her daughter Paula for $50,000, with payment to be
made to Sally Drew in five annual installments of $10,000, plus interest at 15% on the un-
paid balance.
Prepare a journal entry for Neal, Drew & Drew LLP to record the change in ownership,
and explain why you would or would not recommend a change in the valuation of net as-
sets in the accounting records of Neal, Drew & Drew LLP.
(Exercise 2.9) On January 31, 2005, Nancy Ross and John Clemon were admitted to Logan, Marsh &
Noble LLP (CPA firm), which had net assets of $120,000 prior to the admission and an
CHECK FIGURE income-sharing ratio of Logan, 25%; Marsh, 35%; and Noble, 40%. Ross paid $20,000 to
Credit Clemon, capital, Carl Logan for one-half of his 20% share of partnership net assets on January 31, 2005, and
$14,000. Clemon invested $20,000 in the partnership for a 10% interest in the net assets of Logan,
Marsh, Noble, Ross & Clemon LLP. No goodwill was to be recognized as a result of the
admission of Ross and Clemon to the partnership.
Prepare separate journal entries on January 31, 2005, to record the admission of Ross
and Clemon to Logan, Marsh, Noble, Ross & Clemon LLP.
(Exercise 2.10) Partners Arne and Bolt of Arne & Bolt LLP have capital account balances of $30,000 and
$20,000, respectively, and they share net income and losses in a 3 : 1 ratio.
Prepare journal entries to record the admission of Cope to Arne, Bolt & Cope LLP
under each of the following conditions:
CHECK FIGURE a. Cope invests $30,000 for a one-fourth interest in net assets; the total partnership capital
b. Credit Arne, capital, after Cope’s admission is to be $80,000.
$19,500. b. Cope invests $30,000, of which $10,000 is a bonus to Arne and Bolt. In conjunction
with the admission of Cope, the carrying amount of the inventories is increased by
$16,000. Cope’s capital account is credited for $20,000.
(Exercise 2.11) Lamb and Meek, partners of Lamb & Meek Limited Liability Partnership who share net in-
come and losses 60% and 40%, respectively, had capital account balances of $70,000 and
$60,000, respectively, on June 30, 2005. On that date Lamb and Meek agreed to admit
Niles to Lamb, Meek & Niles Limited Liability Partnership with a one-third interest in total
partnership capital of $180,000 and a one-third share of net income or losses, for a cash
investment of $50,000.
Prepare a working paper to compute the balances of the Lamb, Capital, Meek, Capital
and Niles, Capital ledger accounts on June 30, 2005, following the admission of Niles to
Lamb, Meek & Niles Limited Liability Partnership.
(Exercise 2.12) Floyd Austin and Samuel Bradford are partners of Austin & Bradford LLP who share net
income and losses equally and have equal capital account balances. The net assets of the
CHECK FIGURE partnership have a carrying amount of $80,000. Jason Crade is admitted to Austin, Bradford &
b. Credit Crade, capital, Crade LLP with a one-third interest in net income or losses and net assets. To acquire this
$34,000. interest, Crade invests $34,000 cash in the partnership.
Prepare journal entries to record the admission of Crade in the accounting records of
Austin, Bradford & Crade LLP under the:
a. Bonus method.
b. Revaluation of net assets method, assuming partnership inventories are overstated.
(Exercise 2.13) On August 31, 2005, Logan and Major, partners of Logan & Major Limited Liability Part-
nership who had capital account balances of $80,000 and $120,000, respectively, on that
CHECK FIGURE date and who shared net income and losses in a 2 : 3 ratio, agreed to admit Nelson to Logan,
Sept. 30, credit Major, Major & Nelson Limited Liability Partnership with a 20% interest in net assets and net in-
capital, $24,000. come in exchange for a $60,000 cash investment. Logan and Major were to retain their
prior income-sharing arrangement with respect to the 80% remainder of net income (100%
20% 80%). On September 30, 2005, after the closing of the partnership’s revenue and
expense ledger accounts, the Income Summary ledger account had a credit balance of
$50,000.
Prepare journal entries for Logan, Major & Nelson Limited Liability Partnership to
record the admission of Nelson on August 31, 2005, and to close the Income Summary
ledger account on September 30, 2005.
(Exercise 2.14) On January 31, 2005, partners of Lon, Mac & Nan LLP had the following loan and capital
account balances (after closing entries for January):
CHECK FIGURE
Loan receivable from Lon $ 20,000 dr
Credit Ole, capital,
Loan payable to Nan 60,000 cr
$52,000.
Lon, Capital 30,000 dr
Mac, Capital 120,000 cr
Nan, Capital 70,000 cr
The partnership’s income-sharing ratio was Lon, 50%; Mac, 20%; and Nan, 30%.
On January 31, 2005, Ole was admitted to the partnership for a 20% interest in total
capital of the partnership in exchange for an investment of $40,000 cash. Prior to Ole’s
admission, the existing partners agreed to increase the carrying amount of the partnership’s
inventories to current fair value, a $60,000 increase.
Prepare journal entries on January 31, 2005, for Lon, Mac, Nan & Ole LLP to record the
$60,000 increase in the partnership’s inventories and the admission of Ole for a $40,000
cash investment.
(Exercise 2.15) On May 31, 2004, Ike Loy was admitted to Jay & Kaye LLP by investing Loy Company, a
highly profitable proprietorship having identifiable tangible and intangible net assets of
$600,000, at carrying amount and current fair value. Prior to Loy’s admission, capital ac-
count balances and income-sharing percentages of Jay and Kaye were as follows:
CHECK FIGURE
Capital Account Income-Sharing
May 31, 2005, credit
Balances Percentages
Loy, capital, a total
of $72,000. Jay $400,000 60%
Kaye 500,000 40%
The partnership contract for the new Jay, Kaye & Loy LLP included the following
provisions:
1. Loy was to receive a capital account balance of $660,000 on his admission to the part-
nership on May 31, 2004.
2. Income for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2005, and subsequent years was to be allo-
cated as follows:
a. Bonus of 10% of income after the bonus to Loy.
b. Resultant net income or loss 30% to Jay, 20% to Kaye, and 50% to Loy.
Income before the bonus for the year ended May 31, 2005, was $132,000.
Prepare journal entries for Jay, Kaye & Loy LLP on May 31, 2004, and May 31, 2005
(the latter to accrue Loy’s bonus and to close the Income Summary ledger account having
a credit balance of $120,000).
(Exercise 2.16) The inexperienced accountant for Fox, Gee & Hay LLP prepared the following journal en-
tries during the fiscal year ended August 31, 2005:
2004
Sept. 1 Cash 50,000

Goodwill 150,000
Fox, Capital ($150,000 0.25) 37,500
Gee, Capital ($150,000 0.75) 112,500
Hay, Capital 50,000
CHECK FIGURE
Credit Hay, capital, a To record admission of Hay for a 20% interest in net assets,
with goodwill credited to Fox and Gee in their former
net amount of $12,000.
income-sharing ratio. Goodwill is computed as follows:
Implied total capital, based on Hay’s
investment ( $50,0005) $250,000
Less: Net assets prior to Hay’s admission 100,000
Goodwill $150,000
2005
Aug. 31 Income Summary 30,000

Fox, Capital ($30,000 0.20) 6,000
Gee, Capital ($30,000 0.60) 18,000
Hay, Capital ($30,000 0.20) 6,000
To divide net income for the year in the residual income-
sharing ratio of Fox, 20%; Gee, 60%; Hay, 20%. Provision
in partnership contract requiring $40,000 annual salary
allowance to Hay is disregarded because income before
salary is only $30,000.
Prepare journal entries for Fox, Gee & Hay LLP on August 31, 2005, to correct the ac-
counting records, which have not been closed for the year ended August 31, 2005. Assume
that Hay’s admission to the partnership should have been recorded by the bonus method.
Do not reverse the foregoing journal entries.
(Exercise 2.17) On June 30, 2005, the balance sheet of King, Lowe & More LLP and the partners’ respec-
tive income-sharing percentages were as follows:
CHECK FIGURE
KING, LOWE & MORE LLP
Credit cash, $107,000.
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2005
Assets
Current assets $185,000
Plant assets (net) 200,000
Total assets $385,000
Liabilities and Partners’ Capital
Trade accounts payable $ 85,000
Loan payable to King 15,000
King, capital (20%) 70,000
Lowe, capital (20%) 65,000
More, capital (60%) 150,000
Total liabilities and partners’ capital $385,000
King decided to retire from the partnership on June 30, 2005, and by mutual agreement of
the partners the plant assets were adjusted to their total current fair value of $260,000. The
partnership paid $92,000 cash for King’s equity in the partnership, exclusive of the loan,
which was repaid in full. No goodwill was to be recognized in this transaction.
Prepare journal entries for King, Lowe & More LLP on June 30, 2005, to record the ad-
justment of plant assets to current fair value and King’s retirement.
(Exercise 2.18) The partners’ capital (income-sharing ratio in parentheses) of Nunn, Owen, Park & Quan LLP
on May 31, 2005, was as follows:
CHECK FIGURE
Nunn (20%) $ 60,000
Credit Reed, capital,
Owen (20%) 80,000
$22,000.
Park (20%) 70,000
Quan (40%) 40,000
Total partners’ capital $250,000
On May 31, 2005, with the consent of Nunn, Owen, and Quan:
1. Sam Park retired from the partnership and was paid $50,000 cash in full settlement of
his interest in the partnership.
2. Lois Reed was admitted to the partnership with a $20,000 cash investment for a 10%
interest in the net assets of Nunn, Owen, Quan & Reed LLP.
No goodwill was to be recognized for the foregoing events.
Prepare journal entries on May 31, 2005, to record the foregoing events.
(Exercise 2.19) The accountant for Tan, Ulm & Vey LLP prepared the following journal entry on January
31, 2005:
2005
Jan. 31 Goodwill ($12,000 0.40) 30,000

Vey, Capital ($150,000 $12,000) 162,000
Tan, Capital ($30,000 0.25) 7,500
Ulm, Capital ($30,000 0.35) 10,500
Vey, Capital ($30,000 0.40) 12,000
Cash 162,000
To record withdrawal of Ross Vey, with a cash payment of
$162,000, compared with his prewithdrawal capital account
balance, and recognition of implicit goodwill, allocated in
partners’ income-sharing ratio of 25% : 35% : 40%.
Prepare a journal entry for Tan, Ulm & Vey LLP on January 31, 2005, to correct, not re-
verse, the foregoing entry. Show supporting computations in the explanation for the entry.
(Exercise 2.20) Macco Company (a limited partnership) was established on January 2, 2005, with the is-
suance of 10 units at $10,000 a unit to Malcolm Cole, the general partner, and 40 units in
the aggregate to five limited partners at $10,000 a unit. The certificate for Macco provided
that Cole was authorized to withdraw a maximum of $24,000 a year on December 31 of each
year for which net income was at least $100,000 and that limited partners might withdraw
their equity for cash or promissory notes on December 31 of each year only. For 2005
Macco Company had a net income of $300,000, and on December 31, 2005, Cole withdrew
$24,000 cash and a limited partner redeemed 10 units, receiving a two-year promissory
note bearing interest at 10%.
Prepare a statement of partners’ capital for Macco Company (a limited partnership) for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.
Cases
(Case 2.1) The author of Modern Advanced Accounting takes the position (page 27) that salaries
awarded to partners of a limited liability partnership should be recognized as operating
expenses of the partnership. Some other accountants maintain that partners’ salaries should
be accounted for as a step in the division of net income or losses of a limited liability
partnership.
Instructions
Which method of accounting for partners’ salaries do you support? Explain.
(Case 2.2) During your audit of the financial statements of Arnold, Bright & Carle LLP for the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2005, you review the following general journal entry:
2004
Feb. 1 Cash 120,000

Goodwill 60,000
Arnold, Capital ($60,000 0.60) 36,000
Bright, Capital ($60,000 0.40) 24,000
Carle, Capital 120,000
To record admission of Carla Carle to Arnold & Bright LLP
for a one-third interest in total capital, with implicit goodwill
allocated to Arnold and Bright in their income-sharing ratio.
Goodwill is computed as follows:
Implied total capital of partnership based
on Carle’s investment ($120,000 3) $ 360,000
Less: Total capital of Arnold and Bright (180,000)
Cash invested by Carle (120,000)
Goodwill $ 60,000
Instructions
Is recognition of goodwill in the foregoing journal entry in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles? Explain.
(Case 2.3) In a classroom discussion of accounting standards for limited liability partnerships, student
Ronald suggested that interest on partners’ capital account balances, allocated in accor-
dance with the partnership contract, should be recognized as an operating expense by the
partnership.
Instructions
What is your opinion of student Ronald’s suggestion? Explain.
(Case 2.4) The partners of Arch, Bell & Cole LLP had the following capital account balances and
income-sharing ratio on May 31, 2005 (there were no loans receivable from or payable to
partners):
Partner Capital Account Balance Income-Sharing Ratio

Arch $120,000 35%
Bell 210,000 25
Cole 90,000 40
Totals $420,000 100%
The partners are considering admission of Sidney Dale to the new Arch, Bell, Cole & Dale
LLP for a 25% interest in partnership capital and a 20% share of net income. They request
your advice on the preferability of Dale’s investing cash in the partnership compared with
their selling to Dale one-fourth of each of their partnership interests.
Instructions
Present the partners of Arch, Bell & Cole LLP with the advantages and disadvantages of
the two possible methods of the admission of Dale. Disregard income tax considerations.
(Case 2.5) During your audit of Nue & Olde LLP for its first year of operations, you discover the
following end-of-year adjusting entry in the partnership’s general journal:
2005
Dec. 31 Partners’ Income Taxes Expense 40,000

Partners’ Income Taxes Payable 40,000
To provide for income taxes payable on Nue’s and Olde’s
individual income tax returns based on their shares of
partnership income for 2005.
Instructions
Is the recognition of income taxes expense in the foregoing journal entry in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles? Explain, including in your explanation the
accepted definitions of expense and income taxes expense.
(Case 2.6) Dee, Ern & Fay LLP, whose partners share net income and losses equally, had an operating
income of $30,000 for the first year of operations. However, near the end of that year, the
partners learned of two unfavorable developments: (a) the bankruptcy of Sasha Company,
maker of a two-year promissory note for $20,000 payable to Partner Dee that had been in-
dorsed in blank to the partnership by Dee at face amount as Dee’s original investment, and
(b) the appearance on the market of new competing patented devices that rendered worth-
less a patent with a carrying amount of $10,000 that had been invested in the partnership
by Ern as part of Ern’s original investment.
Dee, Ern & Fay LLP had retained the promissory note made by Sasha Company with the
expectation of discounting it when cash was needed. Quarterly interest payments had been
received regularly prior to the bankruptcy of Sasha, but present prospects were for no fur-
ther collections of interest or principal.
Fay argues that the $30,000 operating income should be divided $10,000 to each part-
ner, with the $20,000 loss on the uncollectible note debited to Dee’s capital account and the
$10,000 loss on the worthless patent debited to Ern’s capital account.
Instructions
Do you agree with Fay? Explain.
(Case 2.7) A series of substantial net losses from operations has resulted in the following balance
sheet drafted by the controller of Nobis, Ortho & Parr LLP:
NOBIS, ORTHO & PARR LLP

Balance Sheet
July 31, 2005
Assets
Current assets $420,000
Plant assets (net) 550,000

Current liabilities $380,000
Long-term debt 420,000
Total liabilities $800,000
Art Nobis, capital $ 130,000
June Ortho, capital (120,000)
Carl Parr, capital 160,000
Total partners’ capital 170,000
Concerned about the partnership’s high debt-to-equity ratio of 470.6% ($800,000

$170,000 470.6%), the partners consult with Jack Julian, CPA, controller of the partner-
ship, who is a member of the AICPA, FEI, and IMA (see Chapter 1), regarding the propri-
ety of converting partner Ortho’s capital deficit to an account receivable. Ortho shows
Julian a personal financial statement showing net assets of more than $400,000; Ortho
points out that the bulk of her assets are in long-term investments that are difficult to liqui-
date to obtain cash for investment in the partnership. Partner Ortho is willing to pledge
high-grade securities in her personal portfolio of investments to secure the $120,000
amount.
Instructions
May Jack Julian ethically comply with the request of the partners of Nobis, Ortho & Parr
LLP? Explain.
(Case 2.8) Jean Rogers, CPA, is a member of the AICPA, the IMA, and the FEI (see Chapter 1); she is
employed as the controller of Barnes, Egan & Harder LLP. On June 30, 2005, the end of the
partnership’s fiscal year, partner Charles Harder informed Rogers that the proceeds of a
$100,000 personal loan to him by Local Bank on a one-year, 8% promissory note had been
deposited in the partnership’s checking account at Local Bank. Showing Rogers a memo
signed by all three partners that approved the partnership’s repayment of Harder’s personal
loan, including interest, Harder instructed Rogers to account for the loan proceeds as a
credit to his partnership capital account and to recognize the partnership’s subsequent pay-
ments of principal and interest on the loan with debits to Charles Harder, Drawing and
Interest Expense, respectively.
Instructions
May Jean Rogers ethically comply with Charles Harder’s request? Explain.
(Case 2.9) Carl Dobbs and David Ellis formed Dobbs & Ellis LLP on January 2, 2005. Dobbs invested
cash of $50,000, and Ellis invested cash of $20,000 and marketable equity securities
(classified as available for sale) with a current fair value of $80,000. A portion of the secu-
rities was sold at carrying amount in January 2005 to provide cash for operations of the
partnership.
The partnership contract stated that net income and losses were to be divided in the cap-
ital ratio and authorized each partner to withdraw $1,000 monthly. Dobbs withdrew $1,000
on the last day of each month during 2005, but Ellis made no withdrawals during 2005 until
July 1, when he withdraw all the securities that had not been sold by the partnership. The
securities that Ellis withdrew had a current fair value of $41,000 when invested in the part-
nership on January 2, 2005, and a current fair value of $62,000 on July 1, 2005, when with-
drawn. Ellis instructed the accountant for Dobbs & Ellis LLP to record the transaction by
reducing Ellis’s capital account balance by $41,000, which was done. Income from opera-
tions of Dobbs & Ellis LLP for 2005 amounted to $24,000.
Instructions
Determine the appropriate division of net income of Dobbs & Ellis LLP for 2005. If the
income-sharing provision of the partnership contract is unsatisfactory, state the assump-
tions you would make for an appropriate interpretation of the partners’ intentions. Describe
the journal entry, if any, that you believe should be made for Dobbs & Ellis LLP. (Disregard
income taxes.)
(Case 2.10) George Lewis and Anna Marlin are partners of Lewis & Marlin LLP, who share net in-
come and losses equally. They offer to admit Betty Naylor to Lewis, Marlin & Naylor LLP
for a one-third interest in net assets and in net income or losses for an investment of
$50,000 cash. The total capital of Lewis & Marlin LLP prior to Naylor’s admission was
$110,000. Naylor makes a counteroffer of $40,000, explaining that her investigation of
Lewis & Marlin LLP indicates that many trade accounts receivable are past due and that a
significant amount of the inventories is obsolete. Lewis and Marlin deny both of these
allegations. They contend that inventories are valued in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and that the accounts receivable are fully collectible. How-
ever, after prolonged negotiations, the admission price of $40,000 proposed by Naylor is
agreed upon.
Instructions
Explain two ways in which the admission of Naylor might be recorded by Lewis, Marlin &
Naylor LLP, and indicate which method is preferable.
(Case 2.11) Lowyma Company LLP, a partnership of Ed Loeser, Peter Wylie, and Herman Martin, has
operated successfully for many years, but Martin now plans to retire. In discussions of the
settlement to be made with Martin, the point was made that inventories had been valued at
last-in, first-out cost for many years. Martin suggested that because the partnership had be-
gun managing inventories by the just-in-time system, the first-in, first-out cost of the in-
ventories should be determined and the excess of this amount over the carrying amount of
the inventories should be recognized as a gain to the partnership to be shared equally by the
three partners. Loeser objected to this suggestion on grounds that any method of inventory
valuation would give reasonably accurate results provided it were followed consistently and
that a departure from the long-established last-in, first-out method of inventory valuation
used by the partnership would produce an erroneous earnings record for the life of the part-
nership to date.
Instructions
Evaluate the objections of Ed Loeser by reference to APB Opinion No. 20, “Accounting
Changes.”
Problems
(Problem 2.1) Among the business transactions and events of Oscar, Paul & Quinn LLP, whose partners
shared net income and losses equally, for the month of January 2005, were the following:
Jan. 2 With the consent of Paul and Quinn, Oscar made a $10,000 cash advance to the
partnership on a 12% demand promissory note.
6 With the consent of Oscar and Paul, Quinn withdrew from the partnership
merchandise with a cost of $4,000 and a fair value of $5,200, in lieu of a regular
cash drawing. The partnership uses the perpetual inventory system.
13 The partners agreed that a patent with a carrying amount of $6,000, which had
been invested by Paul when the partnership was organized, was worthless and
should be written off.
27 Paul paid a $2,000 trade account payable of the partnership.
Instructions
Prepare journal entries for the foregoing transactions and events of Oscar, Paul & Quinn
LLP and the January 31, 2005, adjusting entry for the note payable to Oscar.
(Problem 2.2) The condensed balance sheet of Gee & Hawe LLP on December 31, 2004, follows:
CHECK FIGURE
GEE & HAWE LLP
a. Credit Ivan, capital,
Balance Sheet
$120,000; b. Net
December 31, 2004
income to Hawe,
$12,000. Assets Liabilities and Partners’ Capital
Current assets $100,000 Liabilities $300,000
Plant assets (net) 500,000 Louis Gee, capital 200,000
Ray Hawe, capital 100,000
Total $600,000 Total $600,000
Gee and Hawe shared net income or losses 40% and 60%, respectively. On January 2, 2005,
Lisa Ivan was admitted to Gee, Hawe & Ivan LLP by the investment of the net assets of her
highly profitable proprietorship. The partners agreed to the following current fair values of
the identifiable net assets of Ivan’s proprietorship:
Current assets $ 70,000

Plant assets 230,000
Less: Liabilities 200,000
Net assets $100,000
Ivan’s capital account was credited for $120,000. The partners agreed further that the
current fair values of the net assets of Gee & Hawe LLP were equal to their carrying
amounts and that the accounting records of the old partnership should be used for the new
partnership. The following partner-remuneration plan was adopted for the new partnership:
1. Salaries of $10,000 to Gee, $15,000 to Hawe, and $20,000 to Ivan, to be recognized as
expenses of the partnership.
2. A bonus of 10% of income after deduction of partners’ salaries and the bonus to Ivan.
3. Remaining income or loss as follows: 30% to Gee, 40% to Hawe, and 30% to Ivan.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, Gee, Hawe & Ivan LLP had income of
$78,000 before partners’ salaries and the bonus to Ivan.
Instructions
Prepare journal entries for Gee, Hawe & Ivan LLP to record the following (include sup-
porting computations in the explanations for the entries):
a. The admission of Ivan to the partnership on January 2, 2005.
b. The partners’ salaries, bonus, and division of net income for the year ended Decem-
ber 31, 2005.
(Problem 2.3) Ross & Saye LLP was organized and began operations on March 1, 2004. On that date,
Roberta Ross invested $150,000, and Samuel Saye invested land and building with current
fair values of $80,000 and $100,000, respectively. Saye also invested $60,000 in the part-
nership on November 1, 2004, because of its shortage of cash. The partnership contract in-
cludes the following remuneration plan:
CHECK FIGURE
Ross Saye
a. Net income to Ross,
$66,000; b. Saye, Annual salary (recognized as operating expense) $18,000 $24,000
capital, $294,000. Annual interest on average capital account balances 10% 10%
Remainder 60% 40%
The annual salary was to be withdrawn by each partner in 12 monthly installments.

During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2005, Ross & Saye LLP had net sales of
$500,000, cost of goods sold of $280,000, and total operating expenses of $100,000 (in-
cluding partners’ salaries expense but excluding interest on partners’ average capital account
balances). Each partner made monthly cash drawings in accordance with the partnership
contract.
Instructions
a. Prepare a condensed income statement of Ross & Saye LLP for the year ended Febru-
ary 28, 2005. Show the details of the division of net income in a supporting exhibit.
b. Prepare a statement of partners’ capital for Ross & Saye LLP for the year ended Febru-
ary 28, 2005.
(Problem 2.4) Partners Lucas and May formed Lucas & May LLP on January 2, 2005. Their capital ac-
counts showed the following changes during:
CHECK FIGURE
Lucas, May,
b. Net income to May,
Capital Capital
$43,500; d. Net
income to Lucas, Original investments, Jan. 2, 2005 $120,000 $180,000
$28,800. Investments: May 1 15,000
July 1 15,000
Withdrawals: Nov. 1 (30,000) (75,000)
Capital account balances, Dec. 31, 2005 $105,000 $120,000
The income of Lucas & May LLP for 2005, before partners’ salaries expense, was
$69,600. The income included an extraordinary gain of $12,000.
Instructions
Prepare a working paper to compute each partner’s share of net income of Lucas & May
LLP for 2005 to the nearest dollar, assuring the following alternative income-sharing plans:
a. The partnership contract is silent as to division of net income or loss.

b. Income before extraordinary items is shared equally after allowance of 10% interest on
average capital account balances (computed to the nearest month) and after salaries of
$20,000 to Lucas and $30,000 to May recognized as operating expenses by the partner-
ship. Extraordinary items are shared in the ratio of original investments.
c. Income before extraordinary items is shared on the basis of average capital account bal-
ances, and extraordinary items are shared on the basis of original investments.
d. Income before extraordinary items is shared equally between Lucas and May after a
20% bonus to May based on income before extraordinary items after the bonus. Extra-
ordinary items are shared on the basis of original investments.
(Problem 2.5) Alex, Baron & Crane LLP was formed on January 2, 2005. The original cash investments
were as follows:
CHECK FIGURE
Alex $ 96,000
a. Net income to Alex,
Baron 144,000
$11,760; b. Crane,
Crane 216,000
capital, $202,540.
According to the partnership contract, the partners were to be remunerated as follows:

1. Salaries of $14,400 for Alex, $12,000 for Baron, and $13,600 for Crane, to be recog-
nized as operating expenses by the partnership.
2. Interest at 12% on the average capital account balances during the year.
3. Remainder divided 40% to Alex, 30% to Baron, and 30% to Crane.
Income before partners’ salaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, was
$92,080. Alex invested an additional $24,000 in the partnership on July 1; Crane withdrew
$36,000 from the partnership on October 1; and, as authorized by the partnership contract,
Alex, Baron, and Crane each withdrew $1,250 monthly against their shares of net income
for the year.
Instructions
a. Prepare a working paper to divide the $92,080 income before partners’ salaries of the
Alex, Baron & Crane LLP for the year ended December 31, 2005, among the partners.
Show supporting computations.
b. Prepare a statement of partners’ capital for the Alex, Baron & Crane LLP for the year
ended December 31, 2005.
(Problem 2.6) Partner Eng plans to withdraw from Chu, Dow & Eng LLP on July 10, 2005. Partnership
assets are to be used to acquire Eng’s partnership interest. The balance sheet for the part-
nership on that date follows:
CHECK FIGURE
CHU, DOW & ENG LLP
a. Debit Chu, capital,
Balance Sheet
$2,400; c. Debit Chu,
July 10, 2005
capital, $15,000.
Cash $ 74,000 Liabilities $ 45,000
Trade accounts receivable (net) 36,000 Chu, capital 120,000
Plant assets (net) 135,000 Dow, capital 60,000
Goodwill (net) 30,000 Eng, capital 50,000
Total $275,000 Total $275,000
Chu, Dow, and Eng share net income and losses in the ratio of 3 : 2 : 1, respectively.
Instructions
Prepare journal entries to record Eng’s withdrawal from the Chu, Dow & Eng LLP on July 10,
2005, under each of the following independent assumptions:
a. Eng is paid $54,000, and the excess paid over Eng’s capital account balance is recorded
as a bonus to Eng from Chu and Dow.
b. Eng is paid $45,000, and the difference is recorded as a bonus to Chu and Dow from Eng.
c. Eng is paid $45,000, and goodwill currently in the accounting records of the partner-
ship, which arose from Chu’s original investment of a highly profitable proprietorship,
is reduced by the total amount of impairment implicit in the transaction.
d. Eng accepts cash of $40,500 and plant assets (equipment) with a current fair value of
$9,000. The equipment had cost $30,000 and was 60% depreciated, with no residual
value. (Record any gain or loss on the disposal of the equipment in the partners’ capital
accounts.)
(Problem 2.7) Yee & Zane LLP has maintained its accounting records on the accrual basis of accounting,
except for the method of handling uncollectible account losses. Doubtful accounts expense
has been recognized only when specific trade accounts receivable were determined to be
uncollectible.
CHECK FIGURE The partners of Yee & Zane LLP are anticipating the admission of Arne to the firm on
a. Debit Yee, capital, December 31, 2005, and they retain you to review the partnership accounting records be-
$3,530; b. Credit Arne, fore this action is taken. You suggest that the firm change retroactively to the allowance
capital, $20,000. method of accounting for doubtful accounts receivable so that the planning for admission
of Arne may be based on the accrual basis of accounting. The following information is
available:
Year Trade Additional

Accounts Trade Accounts Receivable Written Off Estimated
Receivable Uncollectible
Originated 2003 2004 2005 Accounts
2002 $1,200 $ 200
2003 1,500 1,300 $ 600 $ 450
2004 1,800 1,400 1,250
2005 2,200 4,800
Totals $2,700 $3,300 $4,200 $6,500
The partners shared net income and losses equally through 2004. In 2005 the income-
sharing plan was changed as follows: salaries of $8,000 and $6,000 to Yee and Zane, re-
spectively, to be expensed by the partnership; the resultant net income or loss to be divided
60% to Yee and 40% to Zane. Income of Yee & Zane LLP for 2005 was $52,000 before
partners’ salaries expense.
Instructions
a. Prepare a journal entry for Yee & Zane LLP on December 31, 2005, giving effect to the
change in accounting method for doubtful accounts expense. Support the entry with an
exhibit showing changes in doubtful accounts expense for the year ended December 31,
2005.
b. Assume that after you prepared the journal entry in a above, Yee’s capital account bal-
ance was $48,000, Zane’s capital account balance was $22,000, and Arne invested
$30,000 for a 20% interest in net assets of Yee, Zane & Arne LLP and a 25% share in net
income or losses. Prepare a journal entry for Yee, Zane & Arne LLP to record the ad-
mission of Arne on December 31, 2005, by the bonus method.
(Problem 2.8) Following are financial statements and additional information for Alef, Beal & Clarke
LLP:
CHECK FIGURE
ALEF, BEAL & CLARKE LLP
Net cash provided by
Income Statement
operating activities,
$45,804.
Revenue and gain:
Fees $480,000
Gain on disposal of equipment 600
Total revenue and gain $480,600
Expenses:
Depreciation $ 3,220
Other 427,670
Total expenses 430,890
Net income $ 49,710
Partner Alef $ 22,280
Partner Beal 5,150
Partner Clarke 22,280
Total $ 49,710

Alef Beal Clarke Combined

Partners’ capital, beginning of year $ 9,805 $ 10,680 $ 12,089 $ 32,574
Add: Net income 22,280 5,150 22,280 49,710
Goodwill recognized on
partner Beal’s retirement 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000
Subtotals $ 33,085 $ 16,830 $ 35,369 $ 85,284
Less: Drawings (16,735) (4,830) (15,700) (37,265)
Retirement of partner Beal (12,000) (12,000)
Partners’ capital, end of year $ 16,350 $ -0- $ 19,669 $ 36,019

Comparative Balance Sheets
December 31, 2005, and 2004
Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Increase

2005 2004 (Decrease)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash $ 8,589 $ 3,295 $ 5,294
Trade accounts receivable 12,841 8,960 3,881
Allowance for doubtful accounts (930) (1,136) (206)*
Supplies 983 412 571
Total current assets $21,483 $11,531 $ 9,952
Investments:
Cash surrender value of life insurance
policies $ 4,060 $ 5,695 $ (1,635)
Plant assets:
Land $ 4,200 $ 4,200 $ 0
Buildings and equipment 40,800 30,090 10,710
Accumulated depreciation of buildings and
equipment (12,800) (13,480) (680)†
Net plant assets $32,200 $20,810 $11,390
Goodwill $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Total assets $60,743 $38,036 $22,707

Current liabilities:
Note payable to bank $ 3,330 $ 3,330
Trade accounts payable 1,681 $ 2,984 (1,303)
Accrued liabilities 1,913 2,478 (565)
Current portion of long-term debt 5,600 5,600
Total current liabilities $12,524 $ 5,462 $ 7,062
Long-term debt:
Equipment contract payable, due $300
monthly plus interest at 6% $ 4,200 $ 4,200
Note payable to retired partner, due $2,000
each July 1 plus interest at 5% 8,000 8,000
Total long-term debt $12,200 $12,200
Total liabilities $24,724 $ 5,462 $19,262
Partners’ capital:
Partner Alef $16,350 $ 9,805 $ 6,545
Partner Beal 10,680 (10,680)
Partner Clarke 19,669 12,089 7,580
Total partners’ capital $36,019 $32,574 $ 3,445
Total liabilities and partners’ capital $60,743 $38,036 $22,707
*A decrease in the allowance and an increase in total current assets.

†
A decrease in accumulated depreciation and an increase in net plant assets.
Additional Information
1. Alef, Beal, and Clarke shared net income and losses equally. On July 1, 2005, after the
$15,450 net income of the partnership for the six months ended June 30, 2005, had been di-
vided among the partners, Andrew Beal retired from the partnership, receiving $2,000 cash
and a 5%, five-year promissory note for $10,000 in full settlement of his interest. The
partners agreed to recognize goodwill of $3,000 prior to Beal’s retirement and to retain
Beal’s name in the partnership name. Alef and Clarke agreed to share net income and
losses equally following Beal’s retirement.
2. Following Beal’s withdrawal, the insurance policy on his life was canceled, and the part-
nership received the cash surrender value of $3,420.
3. The partnership had acquired equipment costing $15,210 on August 31, 2005, for $6,210
cash and an equipment contract payable $300 a month at the end of each month beginning
September 30, 2005, plus interest at 6%. The partnership made required payments when due.
4. On September 30, 2005, the partnership had disposed of equipment that had cost $4,500
for $1,200, recognizing a gain of $600.
5. The partnership had borrowed $3,330 from the bank on a six-month, 8% promissory
note due April 15, 2006.
Instructions
Prepare a statement of cash flows under the indirect method for Alef, Beal & Clarke LLP
for the year ended December 31, 2005. A working paper is not required.
(Problem 2.9) Southwestern Enterprises (a limited partnership) was formed on January 2, 2005, with the
issuance of 1,200 units, $1,000 each, as follows:
CHECK FIGURE
Laurence Douglas, general partner, 400 units $ 400,000
Net income to limited
10 limited partners, 800 units total 800,000
partners, $360,000.
Total (1,200 units) $1,200,000
The trial balance of Southwestern Enterprises on December 31, 2005, the end of its first
year of operations, is as follows:
SOUTHWESTERN ENTERPRISES (a limited partnership)

Trial Balance
December 31, 2005
Debit Credit
Cash $ 20,000
Trade accounts receivable 90,000
Allowance for doubtful accounts $ 10,000
Inventories 100,000
Plant assets 1,500,000
Accumulated depreciation of plant assets 100,000
Note payable to bank 20,000
Trade accounts payable 50,000
Accrued liabilities 30,000
Laurence Douglas, capital 400,000
Laurence Douglas, drawings 0
Limited partners, capital 800,000
Limited partners, redemptions 260,000
Net sales 1,400,000
Cost of goods sold 700,000
Operating expenses 140,000
Totals $2,810,000 $2,810,000
Additional Information
1. The Limited Partners, Capital and Limited Partners, Redemptions ledger accounts are
controlling accounts supported by subsidiary ledgers.
2. The certificate for Southwestern Enterprises provides that general partner Laurence
Douglas may withdraw cash each December 31 to the extent of his unit participation in
the net income of the limited partnership. Douglas had no drawings for 2005. The cer-
tificate also provides that limited partners may withdraw their net equity only on June 30
or December 31 of each year. Two limited partners, each owning 100 units in South-
western Enterprises, withdrew cash for their equity during 2005, as shown by the fol-
lowing Limited Partners, Redemptions ledger account:
Limited Partners, Redemptions

Date Explanation Debit Credit Balance
2005
June 30 100 units @ $1,100 110,000 110,000 dr
Dec. 31 100 units @ $1,500 150,000 260,000 dr
3. Net income of Southwestern Enterprises for the year ended December 31, 2005, was
subdivided as follows:
Six months ended June 30, 2005 $120,000

Six months ended Dec. 31, 2005 440,000
Net income, year ended Dec. 31, 2005 $560,000
4. The 10%, six-month bank loan had been received on December 31, 2005.
5. There were no disposals of plant assets during 2005.
Instructions
Prepare an income statement, a statement of partners’ capital, a balance sheet, and a state-
ment of cash flows (indirect method) for Southwestern Enterprises (a limited partnership)
for the year ended December 31, 2005. Show net income per weighted-average unit sepa-
rately for the general partner and the limited partners in the income statement, and show
partners’ capital per unit in the balance sheet. A working paper is not required for the state-
ment of cash flows.
(Problem 2.10) The partners of Noble & Roland LLP have asked you to review the following balance sheet
(AICPA Professional Standards, vol. 2, “Compilation and Review of Financial Statements,”
sec. AR100.04 defines review as follows:
CHECK FIGURE Review of financial statements. Performing inquiry and analytical procedures that provide the
b. Total assets, accountant with a reasonable basis for expressing limited assurance that there are no material
$115,000. modifications that should be made to the statements in order for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles or, if applicable, with another comprehensive
basis of accounting.
Also, sec. AR100.35 states: “Each page of the financial statements reviewed by the ac-
countant should include a reference such as ‘See Accountant’s Review Report.’ ”)
NOBLE & ROLAND LLP

Balance Sheet
June 30, 2005
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,000
Short-term investments in marketable equity
securities, at cost 10,000
10% note receivable, due on demand 20,000
Trade accounts receivable 40,000
Short-term prepayments 1,000
Total current assets $ 74,000
Equipment, net of accumulated depreciation $4,000 50,000

Current liabilities:
Trade accounts payable $ 15,000
Accrued liabilities 2,000
Total current liabilities $ 17,000
Long-term debt:
8% note payable, due June 30, 2009 5,000
Total liabilities $ 22,000
Partners’ capital:
Partner Anne Noble $62,000
Partner Janice Roland 40,000
Total partners’ capital 102,000
Your review of the foregoing balance sheet disclosed the following:

1. The partners had requested your review because the bank considering their application for
a 30-day, 12%, unsecured loan of $5,000 had requested a review because of concern about
the partnership’s high current ratio of $4.35 to $1 ($74,000 $17,000 $4.35 to $1).
2. The short-term investments, properly classified as available for sale, had a current fair
value of $6,000. Because of the substantial unrealized loss on the investments, the part-
nership had no present plans to dispose of them in the near future.
3. The note receivable had been executed by partner Janice Roland two years ago; because
interest had been paid to June 30, 2005, the partnership had no present plans to demand
payment of the principal.
4. Trade accounts receivable totaling $5,000 are estimated to be doubtful of collection.
5. Payee of the note payable was partner Anne Noble.
6. Interest rates on the note receivable and note payable, and depreciation of the equipment,
appeared appropriate.
Instructions
a. Prepare journal entries to correct the accounting records of Noble & Roland LLP as of
June 30, 2005. Allocate all entries affecting income statement accounts to the partners’
capital accounts in their income-sharing ratio: Noble, 60%; Roland, 40%.
b. Prepare a corrected balance sheet for Noble & Roland LLP as of June 30, 2005.
In preparing the solution, refer to the following sources:

Accounting Research Bulletin No. 43, “Restatement and Revision of Accounting
Research Bulletins,” chs. 1A5 and 3A4.
APB Opinion No. 12, “Omnibus Opinion—1967,” pars. 2 and 3.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 57, “Related Party Disclosures,”
par. 2.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115, “Accounting for Certain Invest-
ments in Debt and Equity Securities,” pars. 12b, 13, and 17.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 130, “Reporting Comprehensive
Income,” pars. 26 and 33a.

Chap2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Larsen: Modern Advanced I. Accounting for 2.

Partnerships: © The McGraw−Hill

26 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

ORGANIZATION OF A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Deciding between an LLP and a Corporation

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 27

Is the LLP a Separate Entity?

The Partnership Contract

28 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

Ledger Accounts for Partners

Loans to and from Partners

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 29

Valuation of Investments by Partners

INCOME-SHARING PLANS FOR LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS

Division of Net Income or Loss

30 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

5. Bonus to managing partner based on income.

Ledger Accounts Alb, Capital Bay, Capital

Alb, Drawing Bay, Drawing

Division of Earnings Equally or in Some Other Ratio

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 31

Journal Entry to Close Income Summary 300,000

Journal Entry to Close Alb, Capital 60,000

Division of Earnings in Ratio of Partners’ Capital Account Balances

32 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

ALB & BAY LLP

Interest on Partners’ Capital Account Balances with Remaining

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 33

Division of Net Alb Bay Combined

Division of Net Loss Alb Bay Combined

Closing the Income Alb, Capital 27,500

34 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 35

A solution to the problem of recognizing unequal personal services by partners is to

Division of $140,000 Alb Bay Combined

The following journal entries are required for the foregoing:

Bonus to Managing Partner Based on Income

36 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

Salaries to Partners with Interest on Capital Accounts

Division of Net Alb Bay Combined

Financial Statements for an LLP

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 37

ALB & BAY LLP

Net sales $3,000,000

Statement of Partners’ Capital

ALB & BAY LLP

Partner Alb Partner Bay Combined

38 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

ALB & BAY LLP

Assets Liabilities and Partners’ Capital

Statement of Cash Flows

ALB & BAY LLP

Cash ﬂows from operating activities:

Chapter 2 Partnerships: Organization and Operation 39

Correction of Partnership Net Income of Prior Period

CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OF LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS

40 Part One Accounting for Partnerships and Branches

Accounting and Managerial Issues

Admission of a New Partner

*$90,000 600 units outstanding throughout 2005 $150.

*(40 $1,000) (40 $150) $46,000.

*$644,000 560 $1,150.

Jan. 31 Goodwill ($12,000 0.40) 30,000

Concerned about the partnership’s high debt-to-equity ratio of 470.6% ($800,000