Without counting the rental income, this blows up the DTI ratios pretty quick.And yes, local banks are over-weighted in 1-4 unit (residential) investment property loans in their portfolios, with lots of them impaired, and they're compelled to cut off new lending to comply with regulator and Board directives to reduce exposure in this area.They all want to focus on secondary market lending, preferably to wage-earning OOs, where the underwriting is easier, as the income they can generate for this activity features a very high ROI, without taking on any credit risk for the bank.

Impairment losses can be used to offset gains, provided it qualifies.

Anything less will seriously impair your defense against a fair housing violation claim.You should decide form the start if you will accept an applicant for a month out from when you want (ie Feb 1 vs Jan 1.

The fact someone is at home and not in a hospital doesn't mean they aren't impaired.

.) $100,000 + $4,166.67 = $104,166.67 (Nominal Account Balance) $104,166.67 x .96 = $100,000 ("True" Value of money after inflation of 4%) My apologies to the math impaired.

La Quinta reports 8-18% for the last five years, though they show a large "impairment loss" in the last three years.

Was there a material change in family needs, whether the seller became financially impaired, and whether the circumstances causing the sale were reasonably foreseeable when the taxpayer bought the property? 

I have rented property through VASH and S-8 as well as to people with SSDI/SSI with impairments they didn't chose.

I understand that assets are supposed to be marked down when it is clear that they are impaired and not when the impairment is realized through a sale.But did the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which allowed financial firms to not use mark-to-market rules when it suited their convenience, change things?

I've had the most success asking the neighbors, especially when there are obvious impairments to the property.