@Susan Robb I believe you mean that improvements can be expensed under the safe harbor for small taxpayers or the routine maintenance safe harbor. 

Some people tend to use more water in their daily routines than others.

That is, he or she has been able to think beyond the routine way of structuring a deal.

I will say this is the least attractive of the three safe harbors as the De Minimis Safe Harbor (DMSH) and the Routine Maintenance Safe Harbor (RMSH) will likely yield better results. 2.

I am researching this last point as I would like to establish whether smoke is a strict requirement of the regulations.I do know from meetings of a landlord association that the big corporate landlords in Ontario are moving to inspect smoke alarms twice yearly as a matter of routine.

You may get some tenants playing games (Oh, I mailed it to the other LL) so you'll have to keep a solid relationship with the previous owner for a month or two until the new routine kicks in.You can try to get them to sign new leases upon the sale but they are under no obligation to do so.Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Section 8 rules to help you on that front.

When I do the walk through and lease signing I reinforce two things.  1) email for routine things because it protects everyone and is the best way to get a hold of me. 2) call when their is "WATER WATER EVERYWHERE" It works well, because they only "call" if it's truly an emergency.

It is a means to adjust your accounting method to adopt the routine maintenance safe harbor which is a requirement.

That's what made me feel uncomfortable about it and like it was somewhat "sketchy".. 

Another analogy comes to mind: folks who say never buy RE site unseen or pay a premium for turnkey providers & others who routinely do that and quite successfully too.