I’ll let readers decide how they want to interpret the facts I stated.The underlying investment was student housing.

Let me know if you'd like me to review the purchase agreement for you (as a free consultant, no agency implied) and I can give you my interpretation. 

The way I interpret the following policy clause is that so long as the property is defined as other than "VACANT" which is the case when the property is being "constructed, altered or repaired", the 30-day time period and vacant status does not apply in this instance: We do not insure any loss at your premises if your dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss and the declaration page indicates an occupancy other than “VACANT“.

My interpretation of the original post is that the sellers agent is asking for $3,000 as a flat fee. 

In this case, the seller is still responsible for his original loan, and then Ashish's answer is correct: interest deduction belongs to the seller.Once I re-read the original post by Anirudh, I realized that he left both interpretations possible.

I'm not sure why "within the unit" is not being interpreted to include the balcony.

Each CPA will answer the questions uniquely based on their interpretation of the tax law as well as your specific scenario, so I highly recommend having a trusted CPA answer this for you.

If he meant it the way you interpreted it, he could be applying the rules in his jurisdiction, possibly erroneously, to your jurisdiction.  

That is interpreted to be the simple reading of the question.

Don't even leave anything open for interpretation.