# Question

On January 1, 2010, Pierson Corporation exchanged \$1,710,000 cash for 90 percent of the outstanding voting stock of Steele Company. The consideration transferred by Pierson provided a reasonable basis for assessing the total January 1, 2010, fair value of Steele Company. At the acquisition date, Steele reported the following owner’s equity amounts in its balance sheet:
Common stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \$400,000
Additional paid-in capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000
Retained earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265,000

In determining its acquisition offer, Pierson noted that the values for Steele’s recorded assets and liabilities approximated their fair values. Pierson also observed that Steele had developed internally a customer base with an assessed fair value of \$800,000 that was not reflected on Steele’s books. Pierson expected both cost and revenue synergies from the combination.
At the acquisition date, Pierson prepared the following fair-value allocation schedule:
Fair value of Steele Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \$1,900,000
Book value of Steele Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725,000
Excess fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,175,000
to customer base (10-year remaining life) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
to goodwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \$ 375,000

At December 31, 2011, the two companies report the following balances:


a. Using the acquisition method, determine the consolidated balances for this business combination as of December 31, 2011.
b. If instead the noncontrolling interest’s acquisition-date fair value is assessed at \$152,500, what changes would be evident in the consolidatedstatements?

Sales0
Views149