Quote from @Ned Carey:
@Yoni R. it is not really weird and it is not a "technicality" It is the normal way things are taxed and reported in your situation.
Sadly some lessons are hard to learn. The fact is banks often have standardized rules and those rules don't always seem fair or make sense. When you chose how to be taxed there are often advantages and sometimes disadvantages. Minimizing your income on your tax return is good for paying less taxes but it is bad for looking like you make enough money to repay a loan. It is a trade off we all deal with.
Some banks and lenders will look at it differently. If you are not a guarantor for the loan they may not count it. (How did you get a loan your did not personally guarantee? I'd like to get those!) Also if you are showing a loss due to depreciation some loan underwriters will adjust for that. You just have to keep looking for the type of lender that will work with you.
Generally you want a relationship lender. A lender that gets to know you and your situation and is willing to consider your unique situation. This would usually be a smaller local bank. Big banks tend to be more transactional and box checkers with firm criteria. Good luck.
That’s not exactly right at all. The income would appear on my tax return regardless. Or as a pass through on schedule E or as K1 if it were an LLC with 2 members. The income would appear on my tax return regardless.
What’s weird is if I were to structure my LLC where I am 99% owner and my holding company (which I also own 100%) is 1% owner then the LLC would issue a K1 to me personally and another K1 to my holding company, which is a pass through, and I would just have two K1’s on my personal tax return constituting of 100% of the property. And what’s funny is that this would be ok with the lender. So ya that’s just a total technicality.
Second of all the aforementioned loan is a non recourse commercial mortgage and is non recourse meaning I did not personally guarantee it. The asset is the only collateral for the loan.
According to the above sounds like a complete technicality to me.