Ask a Lawyer and Get Answers to Your Legal Questions
The requirements for the exemption are that the selling taxpayer must have "lived in and owned" the house as their principal residence for two of the five years immedicately preceding the sale. Therefore, this sale would not qualify.
The seller must be the owner of the property. You stated that the corporation owned the home. This disqualifies the sale form the exemption.
There have been several rulings in court cases relating to the personal use of corporate owned property. Generally, in the situation you have described, the shareholders have been found to have received "dividend income" or "compensation income" if they have had the use of corporate property without having compensated the corporation for that use.
The assets do not "pass through" ownership to the shareholders; the corporation is a separate legal entity.
This is WELL-ESTABLISHED tax law. Any time that you attempt to attribute ownership of corporate assets to the individual shareholders you not only put yourself at risk for additional tax problems, you put the corporation at risk for having the corporate veil pierced and, thereby, risking the entire setup.
Here is a link to a case that is on point http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/moran7.TCM.WPD.pdf
And here are several links that discuss this general situation. Please note that in EVERY case, shareholders are instructed NOT to use corporate assets without compensating the corporation and that personal use of corporate assets can lead to piercing the corporate veil.
I am sorry that this is not the answer you want, but anyone who tells you differently is leading you down an extremely dangerous road regarding your tax situation.