Show me why I'm wrong: partial exclusion for home sell capital gains 2 out-of-5 year rule

Ok so I'm having some back and forth with my tax preparers. Long story short, I don't have the ability use anyone else. So I need to convince them they are wrong rather than trying to find someone that already agrees with me or just doing it myself.

I have a home I've owned for 12 years. I've rented it for the past 4 as I moved out of the area due to work. I now want to sell my home and apply for partial capital gain exclusion as found in the code. LINK

Within the code:

quote:

---

If you don't meet the Eligibility Test, you may still qualify for a partial exclusion of gain. You can meet the requirements for a partial exclusion if the main reason for your home sale was a change in workplace location, a health issue, or an unforeseeable event.
You meet the requirements for a partial exclusion if any of the following events occurred during your time of ownership and residence in the home.

You took or were transferred to a new job in a work location at least 50 miles farther from the home than your old work location. For example, your old work location was 15 miles from the home and your new work location is 65 miles from the home.
You had no previous work location and you began a new job at least 50 miles from the home.
Either of the above is true of your spouse, a co-owner of the home, or anyone else for whom the home was his or her residence.

---

The bolded section is the root of contention. They are saying the IRS will view my renting the place after my move excludes me from claiming the move is the reason for selling. I'm claiming they can't be allowed to interpret my rational unless it's in the code. This is further justified by this IRS bulletin from 2004.

LINK

quote:

---

One commentator asserted that the factors are beyond Congressional intent, unnecessary, and overbroad. The final regulations retain the list of factors because it is helpful in determining the taxpayer’s primary reason for the sale or exchange.

For each of the three grounds for claiming a reduced maximum exclusion, the temporary regulations provide a general definition and one or more safe harbors. Under the temporary regulations, if a safe harbor applies, the taxpayer’s “primary reason” for the sale or exchange is deemed to be change in place of employment, health, or unforeseen circumstances.

---

The bolded section seems to me provide clear guidance that the IRS isn't going to try to determine intent if a safe harbor from the code applies. Which it does:

quote:

---

2) Distance safe harbor. A sale or exchange is deemed to be by reason of a change in place of employment (within the meaning of paragraph (c)(1) of this section) if—

(i) The change in place of employment occurs during the period of the taxpayer's ownership and use of the property as the taxpayer's principal residence; and

(ii) The qualified individual's new place of employment is at least 50 miles farther from the residence sold or exchanged than was the former place of employment, or, if there was no former place of employment, the distance between the qualified individual's new place of employment and the residence sold or exchanged is at least 50 miles.

---

Please tell me where I'm wrong and where i can seek additional guidance within the code as there have been updates since 2004 to these rules. Thanks