My initial point is that there is a lot of disinformation out there and one needs to be sure of the facts before choosing whether to implement a specific strategy or not.The fact of the matter is that there are a whole lot of areas of the tax code where the IRS does not "expressly confirm" an entirely legitimate interpretation.  

In the acquisition of a property with an existing lease and clause that states rent can be increased in succeeding lease terms (with proper notice), is this a strict interpretation that rent cannot be increased in the current term of the lease?

I am sure their previous landlord has a much different interpretation of the facts involving their eviction.

If you read deeper into the original question, it can easily be interpreted as "what's stopping people" that might want to...not necessarily why people don't need to.  

People will interprete the situation as they feel is fair and square to THEM.It has nothing to do with enforceable law which needs to be researched for each prospective state. 

Colleagues, these are you opinions and interpretations.

There are guidelines but they allow for interpretation and using reasonable judgment.

Delivery of notice to rental unit shall be considered proper notice to tenant(s) In the event tenant(s)s fails to comply with any provision of this lease or of the statutes of the Kansas Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, landlord may terminate tenant(s) right to possession upon giving no less than thirty (30) days’ notice in writing to tenant(s) of such default...Am I correctly interpreting the underlined statement to mean I cannot give written notice of default until the next months rent comes due? 

I can also split the conversion between the two years, reducing the combined tax hit.The way I interpret it is that recharacterization of 2017 Roth conversions is still allowed.

We are all making educated guesses in our (noble) attempts to interpret the new law.