Multiple Choice
Edgar Co. acquired 60% of Stendall Co. on January 1, 2011. During 2011, Edgar made several sales of inventory to Stendall. The cost and selling price of the goods were $140,000 and $200,000, respectively. Stendall still owned one-fourth of the goods at the end of 2011. Consolidated cost of goods sold for 2011 was $2,140,000 because of a consolidating adjustment for intra-entity sales less the entire profit remaining in Stendall's ending inventory. How would consolidated cost of goods sold have differed if the inventory transfers had been for the same amount and cost, but from Stendall to Edgar?
A) Consolidated cost of goods sold would have remained $2,140,000.
B) Consolidated cost of goods sold would have been more than $2,140,000 because of the controlling interest in the subsidiary.
C) Consolidated cost of goods sold would have been less than $2,140,000 because of the non-controlling interest in the subsidiary.
D) Consolidated cost of goods sold would have been more than $2,140,000 because of the non-controlling interest in the subsidiary.
E) The effect on consolidated cost of goods sold cannot be predicted from the information provided.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q8: Stark Company, a 90% owned subsidiary of
Q9: Stiller Company, an 80% owned subsidiary of
Q10: On November 8, 2011, Power Corp. sold
Q11: Pot Co. holds 90% of the common
Q12: Strayten Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary
Q14: Walsh Company sells inventory to its subsidiary,
Q15: Gargiulo Company, a 90% owned subsidiary of
Q16: Strickland Company sells inventory to its parent,
Q17: Hambly Corp. owned 80% of the voting
Q104: When comparing the difference between an upstream