That seems to be Intuit's interpretation but we have nothing other than the statues and regs.  When you see the clear distinction between how §170 was written to specifically address carryover in relation to S/D but not §163, especially in the absence of any guidance or cases out there to indicate Investment Interest should be treated the same way, I'm not 100% convinced that's necessarily the correct tax treatment.

Perhaps we need to go back the the preamble from way back when to find out what the Congress' intention was, if anyone has access to it.

[Edited: Inadvertently referenced S/D as I/D]