If the issue was not obvious on visual inspection, and the AC functioned using NOC (normal operating controls) then you don't have a case against the inspector either.

And when questioned on treatment of the property or complaints of other tenants, the accusations and text essays flew. 

Woody has made no claim for section 195 treatment. 

The tax treatment of an IRA is what it is, and it is different than the tax treatment of holding real estate outside of an IRA.

Infographics or spreadsheets - I'm very visual!

That would mean that at this time you do not qualify for Section 121 exclusion of your capital gains on the sale of the property, because you have not owned it and occupied it as your primary residence for two of the past five years.So, your question is can you move back into the property and occupy it for two years and qualify for the Section 121 exclusion of up to the maximum limit of either $250,000 for a single taxpayer or $500,000 for a married taxpayer.The answer is that you cannot.If you move into the property for two years and qualify for Section 121 treatment, you will have two years of "qualified use," and a number of years of "non-qualified use" that would be equal to the number of years you have owned the property minus the two years of "qualified use" as a primary residence.  

You're seeing the damage that is visual, but without destructive testing you'll never know what the extent of the damage is inside the walls. 

Tax treatment preference?

It's SOOOO visually appealing! 

Running scenarios helps me visualize how all this can work, so thank you for taking the time to put that together.Bringing a note investor to the table at the start seems like excellent advice.