As I read this, it's pretty straightforward and unambiguous that I have to pay those dollars as part of indemnifying you." 

@Troy Patt does seem fairly unambiguous :) But did they ever read it? 

Some of these conditions can lead to the account switching to a penalty interest rate of 25% per annum.1) The funds in the account are secured with full recourse to the worldwide assets of the borrower, no matter how indirect the ownership structure is, no exceptions.2) Deposits and withdrawals can only be made electronically to ensure unambiguous dates of transactions and secure transfers.3) The lender can initiate a deposit by performing an electronic transfer to the borrower's account.4) The date of deposit will be the date of receipt of funds listed on the borrower's bank statement.5) If the received deposit would take the lender's account balance over the maximum balance, this deposit shall be returned in full within 7 days during which no interest will accrue on these funds.

If you're a 9-5 M-F W2 guy, and not a remote worker (confirmed in writing unambiguously by your employer's HR people on company letterhead specific to you), no one is going to believe that your true intent is to commute 3 hours each way 5 days a week.

The statute is unambiguous.

Just my opinion and that of experts I have consulted, when a statute is unambiguous, it is less important to have case law. 

I'm still not convinced that it was correct, though.I am willing to pay a CPA or tax professional with extensive experience with syndications in particular (not K-1s in general) to review already-submitted taxes (at least the specific part in contention) and prove to me what the right strategy is, backed up with the unambiguous lines from the supporting IRS docs.If that goes well, then I will want my 2022 taxes finalized, too, but that's secondary to first knowing that there is one correct way to do the 2021 taxes and convincing me of that!

But, if you're only looking for one per year...As a point of data, I'll share what I consider to be a realistic and attractive local purchase with unambiguous data. 

If the HOA tries to push something through that’s illegal, I’d like to understand my rights.To me, NC law is fairly unambiguous here: “Any common expense or portion thereof benefiting fewer than all of the lots shall be assessed exclusively against the lots benefitted” per § 47F-3-115 sec C.

As long as your lease is clear, unambiguous, and legal there should be no issues.Given all things equal, I'd rather have lawyers than kids in my units.