I did some research and found the following table describing 506(b) vs 506(c) offerings:The way I interpret this is as long as there is a pre-existing relationship with the investor(s), there should be no problem, correct?!

I would be curious if there is a different interpretation from sponsors but presumably they are checking your registration when you apply as an investor under this new definition, and if you aren't registered I would think they would not allow you to invest regardless of if you passed the 65 or not.   

Tracking down all of these documents takes a lot of time, effort and communication, and then once you have the documents, you actually have to read them, interpret them, and figure out how they apply to your situation and your applicant's situation.

Looks like you've hit a hiccup with your lease agreement and a tenant who's found a loophole.The key is that technicalities matter, and while the phrase "paid before move-in" seems straightforward, it can be interpreted differently.

In your case, there is room for interpretation.

I think it is common to have different interpretations of the Bible/Testaments.

The truth is that any data or track record can be interpreted in multiple ways, and each sponsor will naturally present their results in the best possible light.

All legal interpretations deserve the attention of legal counselPennsylvania's Real Estate Tax Sale Law says that you can't redeem your home after a sale. (72 P.S. § 5860.501).

@Atul Mohlajee  That's how I would interpret it too, it's in the lease and they would probably win in court. 

There is a concept in the law where when a contract has ambiguity it will be interpreted in favor of the party that did NOT write the contract.