GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Mar 2019, 20:40

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 398
State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 22 Feb 2019, 04:00
4
9
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (02:14) correct 29% (02:30) wrong based on 448 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be taxed at lower rate than the rate based on one's total taxable income. To use income averaging, the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. People using income averaging owe less tax for that year than they would without income averaging.

Which of the following individuals would be most seriously affected if income averaging were not permitted in computing the taxes owed for current year?

(A) Individuals whose income has steadily decreased for the past three years
(B) Individuals whose income increased by 50 percent four years ago and has remained the same since then
(C) Individuals whose income has doubled this year after remaining about the same for five years
(D) Individuals who had no income this year, but did in each of the previous three years
(E) Individuals who are retired and whose income has remained about the same for the past ten years

Originally posted by arjsingh1976 on 27 Oct 2006, 08:19.
Last edited by Bunuel on 22 Feb 2019, 04:00, edited 3 times in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 300
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2006, 22:30
Yes has to be (C).

The income in the present year in (C) would be 200% of the income in the last three years,thus making him eligible for tax averaging,

if that were removed he would have to pay much higher taxes.
_________________

A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2006, 21:06
Looks like C. If salary changes from s to 2s that is a 200% of the original salary which is greater than 140%. Hence C
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 106
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2013, 12:01
arjsingh1976 wrote:
State Xâ€™s income-averaging law allows a portion of oneâ€™s income to be taxed at lower rate than the rate based on oneâ€™s total taxable income. To use income averaging, the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. People using income averaging owe less tax for that year than they would without income averaging.
Which of the following individuals would be most seriously affected if income averaging were not permitted in computing the taxes owed for current year?
(A) Individuals whose income has steadily decreased for the past three years
(B) Individuals whose income increased by 50 percent four years ago and has remained the same since then
(C) Individuals whose income has doubled this year after remaining about the same for five years
(D) Individuals who had no income this year, but did in each of the previous three years
(E) Individuals who are retired and whose income has remained about the same for the past ten years

I am lost in it. Please explain.

Guys,
It is saying "the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. "

Now, if the average taxable income for the previous three years is 100$, then the current taxable income should exceed 140% of 100$, that is total taxable income should be 240$. Then how is C correct, if 100$ is turning to 200$...????? _________________ MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636 HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308 VP Status: Far, far away! Joined: 02 Sep 2012 Posts: 1055 Location: Italy Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship GPA: 3.8 Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be [#permalink] ### Show Tags 11 Jul 2013, 12:10 1 jaituteja wrote: arjsingh1976 wrote: State Xâ€™s income-averaging law allows a portion of oneâ€™s income to be taxed at lower rate than the rate based on oneâ€™s total taxable income. To use income averaging, the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. People using income averaging owe less tax for that year than they would without income averaging. Which of the following individuals would be most seriously affected if income averaging were not permitted in computing the taxes owed for current year? (A) Individuals whose income has steadily decreased for the past three years (B) Individuals whose income increased by 50 percent four years ago and has remained the same since then (C) Individuals whose income has doubled this year after remaining about the same for five years (D) Individuals who had no income this year, but did in each of the previous three years (E) Individuals who are retired and whose income has remained about the same for the past ten years I am lost in it. Please explain. Guys, It is saying "the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. " Now, if the average taxable income for the previous three years is 100$, then the current taxable income should exceed 140% of 100$, that is total taxable income should be 240$.
Then how is C correct, if 100$is turning to 200$...?????

" 140 percent of his or her average taxable income "

the 100% of 100$is 100$ => the 140% of 100 $is 140$.

This is what the text meant, hope it's clear now.
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 106
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2013, 12:16
Zarrolou wrote:
jaituteja wrote:
arjsingh1976 wrote:
State Xâ€™s income-averaging law allows a portion of oneâ€™s income to be taxed at lower rate than the rate based on oneâ€™s total taxable income. To use income averaging, the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. People using income averaging owe less tax for that year than they would without income averaging.
Which of the following individuals would be most seriously affected if income averaging were not permitted in computing the taxes owed for current year?
(A) Individuals whose income has steadily decreased for the past three years
(B) Individuals whose income increased by 50 percent four years ago and has remained the same since then
(C) Individuals whose income has doubled this year after remaining about the same for five years
(D) Individuals who had no income this year, but did in each of the previous three years
(E) Individuals who are retired and whose income has remained about the same for the past ten years

I am lost in it. Please explain.

Guys,
It is saying "the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. "

Now, if the average taxable income for the previous three years is 100$, then the current taxable income should exceed 140% of 100$, that is total taxable income should be 240$. Then how is C correct, if 100$ is turning to 200$...????? " 140 percent of his or her average taxable income " the 100% of 100$ is 100$=> the 140% of 100$ is 140$. This is what the text meant, hope it's clear now. It states that-- taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. The word exceeds states that taxable income is 140% more than(exceeds) average taxable income forof previous 3 years. You are skipping the word "exceeds" _________________ MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636 HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308 VP Status: Far, far away! Joined: 02 Sep 2012 Posts: 1055 Location: Italy Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship GPA: 3.8 Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be [#permalink] ### Show Tags 11 Jul 2013, 12:22 2 1 jaituteja wrote: It states that-- taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. The word exceeds states that taxable income is 140% more than(exceeds) average taxable income forof previous 3 years. You are skipping the word "exceeds" The word exceeds makes no difference in the numbers. (C) Individuals whose income has doubled this year after remaining about the same for five years 100$,100$,100$,100$,100$ and now 200$average of the past 3 years is 100$ so if is income is greater than 140$, he can have less taxes. Which of the following individuals would be most seriously affected if income averaging were not permitted in computing the taxes owed for current year? This individual would be affected because he earned 200$, which is more than 140\$, so could have paid less taxes.

Hope this makes sense
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Senior Manager
Status: Countdown Begins...
Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 287
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q48 V22
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2017, 07:34
Took Some time for me to understand. But I feel all the cases other than choice C fails to stand in this scenario.

Lets see what the averaging method says.

Let income for last three years be a, b,c and current year d.

First and foremost thing, to apply this method, a tax payer's current year income should have satisfied the below case.

$$d > 1.4(\frac{(a+b+c)}{3})$$

If this method is applied then, taxpayer will pay less tax than state's current tax majors.

Now the questions stem says, In case if this method was not adapted, which of the following criteria would seriously would have affected?

Choice A - If the income of a person is steadily decreased, the the current year's income will be less than the average. Hence even this policy would be in force, this person was not eligible for income averaging.

Choice B - Even if the income has increased by 50% 4 years ago, we are considering the last 3 year's income which is same. So this person is also not eligible for the method.

Choice D - If this year's income is 0, the person is also not eligible

Choice E - If a person is retired, his current year's income would be 0.

Only choice C says Current year's income is doubled so this person is eligible for the policy. So this person will get benefit of it. If this policy was not in force, the person would be affected.
Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2018
Posts: 51
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2018, 10:21
arjsingh1976 wrote:
State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be taxed at lower rate than the rate based on one's total taxable income. To use income averaging, the taxpayer must have earned taxable income for a particular year that exceeds 140 percent of his or her average taxable income for the previous three years. People using income averaging owe less tax for that year than they would without income averaging.

Which of the following individuals would be most seriously affected if income averaging were not permitted in computing the taxes owed for current year?

(A) Individuals whose income has steadily decreased for the past three years
(B) Individuals whose income increased by 50 percent four years ago and has remained the same since then
(C) Individuals whose income has doubled this year after remaining about the same for five years(D) Individuals who had no income this year, but did in each of the previous three years
(E) Individuals who are retired and whose income has remained about the same for the past ten years

I am lost in it. Please explain.

Managed to focus on the argument well this time. Income-averaging policy benefits those individuals who get 40% hike in their salaries allowing them to pay less taxes than that they would pay without the policy. Per choice C, individuals whose income doubled this year after remaining same for five years would be the most affected of all if the law is not permitted.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3705
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2019, 03:13
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: State X's income-averaging law allows a portion of one's income to be   [#permalink] 22 Feb 2019, 03:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by