There are 3 safe harbors available to you-De Minimis Safe Harbor ElectionSafe Harbor Election for Small Taxpayers (sounds a bit condescending)Safe Harbor for Routine MaintenanceCheck these out...Frankly given the amount, and what you are doing (low materiality to the plumbing system unit of property), I would expense it.

I am always surprised at how many taxpayers don't want to pay for tax planning so they can make informed decisions.

To qualify for ANY tax exclusion under IRC section 121, the taxpayer must convert to principal residence use hand hold for an additional three years (so the holding period is no shorter than five years).

No W-2 limits.There is an excess business loss limitation, but that's $578,000 for married filing joint taxpayers.

I will need to use my money to make Mortgage, Insurance and Tax payments on it until I can get it with a Vacation Rental company (I use Vacasa)  I have a good job making over 6 digits that I plan to keep working at for another 5 years unless I sell this house and do really well which is highly possible from my experience unless the market tanks similar to 2008. 

Then the partnership can be on title as the owner of both current properties and then the partnership can be the consistent taxpayer for a clean 1031 exchange.

Remember that about half of loans are backed by insurance (you and me as the tax payer) so there is money on the "back end" that the bank stands to gain as well.

@Ryan ReidBelow are a sample of 2 instances when someone would want to perform a cost segregation study.1) They are eligible to claim real estate professional status and performing a cost segregation study would wipe out other forms of income.2) taxpayer has a lot of rentals and some are generating positive taxable income.Performing a cost segregation study on one property may wipe out the taxable income from the other properties.Best of luck.

What could make a deadbeat hillbilly happier that sitting on their fat butt; smoking a cigarette; working on a case of Bud; all of the while watching their 120 inch big screen TV - ALL PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS?

In the past, smaller taxpayers such as yourself held a disproportionately higher audit risk since it's a lot faster to audit the little guy which makes their numbers look better.