I found that for unknown reasons the program reports the land in part III. But since it's not depreciated it doesn't make any difference on "the bottom line". I've not yet taken the time to dig into and research this myself. But I do recall that last year when helping someone that had a situation of selling a rental property and two lots, where the rental structure sat on one of the lots and that was sold separate from the empty lot. We had to do some fancy dancing to get that empty lot to show up on PART I. But we did it. Also discovered then that it made no difference in the bottom line either.
But I do agree that there may be a program issue. It could also be a case where the rental was incorrectly set up in the program from the get-go too. But like I said, I've not taken the time to research it myself.
