@Jim BrandtBefore talking about "losses", let's examine the economic substance of this proposed deal.For her. 

So, I don't think we are dangerously close to a bust at this point.

Dangerous game to compare the two.Best of luck, and happy to connect and discuss!

@Kole Kingslien, about a year ago, I purchased a 4-plex with asbestos siding using a 203k loan, so here’s what I experienced...The asbestos siding (at least mine) is not dangerous to health, like many people believe the insulation. 

Too dangerous as scammers are all over. 

What has been posted is enough to be "dangerous," if it wasn't tax season I may be up for a phone call to discuss your concerns further.If you are interested in investing in a syndication and the tax treatment is a material matter I would question whether it is a good investment. 

It's possible but dangerous.

What are the dangers of being 100% financed?

But basically I agree with only doing this local if your not in the business of funding out of area folks its hard enough and dangerous enough.. if your just looking to do a few projects a year I would only do them where you basically can drive to them.

Based on “substance over form” principles, it ruled that the IRA did not really own Roth Inc for two main reasons:• The IRA’ were exposed to no significant risk; and• An independent person in the IRA’s shoes could not realistically have expected a benefit.Since the IRA did not really “own” Roth Inc, the income really belonged to the taxpayer – and putting that money into the IRA resulted in a taxable “excess contribution”.More specifically, the court held that a $500 investment, absent any other significant risk, does not give rise to any real risk for the IRA.