Here're a few educational posts for you:https://www.biggerpockets.com/member-blogs/10850/91065-how-where-to-look-for-to-find-syndication-investmentshttps://www.biggerpockets.com/member-blogs/10850/87614-interpreting-the-private-placement-memorandum-ppmhttps://www.biggerpockets.com/member-blogs/10850/86626-the-pros-and-cons-of-investing-via-real-estate-syndication

My current interpretation is that private financing is ultimately always hard lenders - is that a safe statement? 

I interpret that to mean that I have until the end of the 3rd to get you the rent before late fees kick in.

I'll be the first to admit that occasionally there would be a dispute between the company's interpretation of policy language and the Insured and their attorney's. 

It is kinda of made out to be if a deal doesn't fix this rule then it is not a deal, however, how strictly do people interpret this rule when there is still a lot profit to be made on a deal but doesn't exactly fit the 70 percent rule?

Looking forward to your COC calc and interpretation@Seth Eatonundefined

All depends on the interpretation of your underwriter. 

Your interpretation of the facts is wrong, for starters and you've offered no evidence to support your claim.If your cash value is growing at 5% and you can borrow against it at 5%, you are borrowing at 5%, not 0%.If you can take that 5% money and use it to earn 10%, you are creating a 5% arbitrage on the outside of the policy.

This deduction is available to businesses and, as of now, it is a common interpretation of the law that landlords - even those that only have one property - qualify for this deduction. 

Maybe I am not interpreting the rule correctly.