On July 1, 2017, Rectangle, Inc. purchased Diamond Company's five-year 12% bonds with a face value of $500,000 for $569,000, which included $25,000 of accrued interest. The bonds, which mature on February 1, 2022, are to be held-to-maturity and pay interest on February 1 and August 1. Rectangle uses the straight-line method of amortization. The amount of income that Rectangle would report for the calendar year 2017 as a result of this long- term investment would be

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The total purchase price of the bonds is $569,000, which includes $25,000 of accrued interest. Therefore, the investment cost excluding accrued interest is $569,000 - $25,000 = $544,000. The face value of the bonds is $500,000, so the premium paid is $544,000 - $500,000 = $44,000. This premium is amortized over the life of the bond (5 years) using the straight-line method, resulting in an annual amortization of $44,000 / 5 = $8,800.Interest income is calculated on the face value of the bonds at the stated interest rate of 12%, which equals $500,000 * 12% = $60,000 annually or $30,000 semi-annually (since interest is paid twice a year).For 2017, Rectangle will receive interest for two periods (July 1 to February 1 and February 1 to August 1). However, since the bonds were purchased on July 1, Rectangle will only recognize interest income for one period (August 1 to February 1), which is $30,000. From this interest income, we subtract the amortization of the premium for half a year (since the bond was purchased mid-year), which is $8,800 / 2 = $4,400.Therefore, the income reported for 2017 is the interest income minus the amortization of the premium: $30,000 - $4,400 = $25,600. However, this calculation does not directly match any of the provided options. The closest option based on the calculation is $25,200, but it appears there may have been a mistake in the calculation steps provided in the explanation. The correct approach to find the income reported should consider the actual interest income recognized for the period the bonds were held in 2017 and correctly account for the amortization of the premium for that period. Given the discrepancy, the explanation aimed to follow the logic based on the given information, but it seems there was an error in the final step or in matching the options provided.