First of all, OP called it a second "home" not a rental
> property. That's not definitive, but I've seldom if ever
> heard people call a property a home if it's a rental.
I guess there is a first time for everything. :-)
But if that were the reason, the CPA should have explained
> it. That's not a hard concept to understand.
I'm under the impression that the CPA did explain it properly. But, it probably wasn't the answer that the poster wanted to hear.
But in addition to that, the passive loss rules don't apply
> (up to a limit) to rental real estate of the owner "actively
> participates" in its management.
Of course, that limit is phased out as AGI increases over $100,000 which I assume is the case here.
I suppose there is a small chance the CPA is right. But if
> he is and either wouldn't or couldn't explain it so the OP
> could understand it, he needs a new CPA anyway.
It sounds to me like the CPA and the poster don't communicate well with each other, but I'll withhold judgment as to whether one side is more to blame than the other. :-) MTW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>