.📜 Know the rules – No "deal-making" in the forums (that means no advertising, pitching services, or looking for partners).

I am wondering, if, as a general rule, the investor will find any DST that don’t break the financials up like that.

If you are in Osceola, Lake, or Seminole County, then the regulations and rules fall to the city and then the HOA rules.

Columbus is a super affordable real estate market where you can still find deals that hit the 1% rule anywhere from $120-180k purchase price.

TLDR: is that it does not meet the 1% Rule nor 50% Rule & likely to Cashflow Negative for a while with current rents, but looking for advice as I need W2-income Tax Benefits and my first investment.Duplex Status : Built 2006 -3Bed/2Bath Each Side w/ A) 6-month Lease $1,250/mo one side & B) 12-month Section-8 Renter $1,250/mo Here is my Current Analysis using CURRENT rents w/ FHA 3.5% Down Payment estimating 6.5% interest rate but I will likely buy points up to a 1% if possible) https://www.biggerpockets.com/analysis/rentals/682608db-8ce9... 

Quote from @Brady Ascheman: Hi everyone, when meeting with my CPA recently I was instructed by here that if you obtain "Real Estate Professional Status" as per the IRS rules then your rental income become "active" instead of "passive" income in the eyes of the IRS.

I can see an explicit exception in CA Tax Code § 17561 that says you can not use the qualifications in Section 469(c)(7) (Real estate professional) to render that income as non-passive, but I see no callout for 1.469-1T and, as such - as a non-CPA - I do not (yet) see a reason why we cannot follow the same rules for CA that we do for our federal taxes; e.g., if the business is not a "rental" business per tax code, we count that income as non-passive and offset other income (W2, etc) similarly.Does anybody else have some guidance (or opinions) on this matter?

Williams tagging Elon Musk on X, urging him to take action against the burdensome Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) rule.

They snuck under the rules by claiming that private individuals had the right to offer other private individuals the service.So again, how do these cities get away with regulating people's abilities to rent their homes on a short term basis? 

Quote from @Jo Benson: I'd like to know from Don Konipol (or anyone else who can step in) of any details of the unanimous court rulings that Don mentions which state that the transfer of some beneficial interest to the buyer does not circumvent the due-on-sale clause.Thank you.Jo, you have it WRONG.