Are either of these kosher?

There is something called The Step Transaction Doctrine

"Under the step transaction doctrine, "a series of transactions designed and executed as parts of a unitary plan to achieve an intended result ... will be viewed as a whole regardless of whether the effect of so doing is imposition of or relief from taxation."

In effect, the IRS can treat a series of transactions in a way that acknowledges they were done to avoid taxation. Especially transactions like this between related parties.

Now, as with any tax-related matter, the question is whether it comes to their attention. If it did, I'd say that both transactions will be disqualified.

According to NadCixelsyd snipped-for-privacy@aol.com:

As others have noted, that would scream bogus. Depending on how involved you want to be, you could buy it now, gift her next year's income, then worry about reselling it later.

If you don't expect to move in the future, just stay there and let it be part of your estate. Or sell it to him and rent it from him until you move, at which point he can do whatever with it.

Over and above the other responses (JoeTaxpayer / John Levine) your statement in (A) that there is no taxable gain is incorrect. She can not exclude any gain that is attributable to the depreciation allowed (amount actually taken) or allowable (amount she could have taken) for the rental period. Additionally, the total gain is calculated after her cost basis is adjusted for the depreciation allowed or allowable. What she has in tax parlance is an unrecaptured Section 1250 gain subject to a max tax of 25%.