However, argue about that in THOSE threads. This one is about IRS behavior.
I have no desire to argue this issue at any further length but you should take note that the publications can be and have been wrong in the past.....caveat emptor.....and you should note WHO LOSES when there is a dispute between the IRS and the taxpayer over language in the publications versus statutory language......guess which? Also, IRS behavior is whatever they want it to be.....they'll leave some returns alone while pursuing others forever and there's no such thing as "selective prosecution" for them. Do you want to play the audit lottery?
FWIW, I prefer @AmeliesUncle's response in the thread cited by you over the "experts":
I am aware that the IRS screwed up the verbiage in Publication 523 a few years ago, but the law did not change, and the law is clear about it.
The term “period of nonqualified use” means any period (other than the portion of any period preceding January 1, 2009) during which the property is not used as the principal residence of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or former spouse.
I think the author who revised Publication 523 was TRYING to explain one of the exceptions, but failed miserably.
