Yes, Romney can and probably will claim that passive loss against whatever passive gain he so chooses. My source is Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetn...the-taxes-on-the-romneys-olympic-horse-wrong/
"But you don’t forfeit the passive losses you can’t use. Instead they’re “suspended” and can be carried forward and used in future years to the extent you have income from other passive activities. Moreover, when you sell all of a money losing passive investment, any unused losses from it are liberated and can be claimed against non-passive taxable income. If Mitt wins and Ann sells her share of Rob Rom, their suspended horse losses could, for example, be deducted against Mitt’s $400,000 Presidential salary."
None of the semantics franklin is arguing are even relevant to my original point. If you take a $77,000 credit for a horse (or deduction, same difference as far as this point is concerned) you should not be bitching about poor people getting $1000 worth of food stamps to help feed their kids. Your tax credit or deduction or whatever you want to call it took money out of the federal coffers just like the food stamps did. Even if you don't see the full benefit of that $77,000 for another year or 2, it doesn't change the fact that you are getting free "money" from the government.