A reduced maximum exclusion may apply to those who satisfy part of the two-year rule.

Absolutely agreed...in fact, we tried out best to design the house in a way that would maximize appraisal while reducing building costs...mostly by playing around with the above grade versus the below grade square footage and finishing just enough of the basement to get appraisal credit.The question was more from a "what do lay-people generally mean when they say/hear square footage" standpoint...or even what do builders mean when they use the term.I'm fairly certain there's no "right" answer...everyone will have their own opinion...I'm just trying to form mine... :-)

There are easier ways to reduce expenses.

If the PM can tell me what they are doing to reduce vacancy and increase renewals, then I am happy to pay.

If the answer is no you need to walk away or reduce the price.You want to have if the rents increase and all this other positive stuff happening after you buy it as icing on the cake and NOT to make the purchase worthwhile and viable only if these events occur.

The investor that is essentially reducing crime and being paid for their time, effort, and risk?

Last year, I was able to get my bill reduced by about $800 for a 20 minute meeting.

When there is a lack of money there needs to be more knowledge as a substitute to reduce the risk to a seller.Back to motivation, a seller who offers SF is an automatic red flag, every time.

Is there anything taxes-wise that I can look into in order to reduce this cost, or another method that would allow me to net more at the end of the month?

You also want to focus on the lowest sale prices to reduce your risk, not the pie in the sky sales..