AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

HUD Publishes Proposed Rule on Implementation of The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA)

person A.J. Johnson today 09/22/2019

HUD published a proposed rule implementing The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) in the federal register on September 17, 2019. HOTMA was enacted on July 29, 2016. This rule would make sweeping changes to current HUD programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8, especially with regard to income calculation and reviews. Other major changes include the continued occupancy of public housing residents with increases in income. The rule is also intended to create consistency between various HUD programs, so there would be changes to the HOME, Housing Trust Fund, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids programs.

Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than November 18, 2019.

Following is an overview of the major changes that would occur if the final rule is adopted.

Income Reexaminations

  1. Reviews of family income shall be made upon the request of a family at any time the income or deductions of the family change by an amount that is estimated to result in a decrease of 10 percent or more in annual adjusted income, or of such lower amount as HUD may establish or permit the PHA or owner to establish. Interim recertifications will not be required if the decrease in adjusted income is less than 10 percent, but PHAs or owners will be able to establish policies to conduct interims when income decreases by less than 10 percent.
  2. PHAs and owners must conduct an interim reexamination of income at any time the family’s adjusted income is estimated to have increased by 10 percent or more. However, PHAs and owners will not be required to conduct an interim for increases in income during the last three months of a certification period. In a major change, increases due to employment income will not be considered when determining whether a household’s income has increased, unless the increase in earned income corresponds to previous decreases resulting from the family’s request for an interim reexamination.

Calculation of Family Income

  1. For purposes of move-in (initial occupancy), the initial provision of housing assistance, or for an interim reexamination of family income, the income for the upcoming year must be estimated (this is in line with current rules). In determining annual income for annual recertifications, the proposed rule requires that the PHA or owner use the income of the family as determined by the PHA or owner for the preceding year, taking into account any changes in income as reflected on interim certifications during the year. In cases where an interim recertification was not done because the change in income was less than 10 percent, the income will be adjusted to reflect the change in income.

De Minimis Error

  1. A PHA or owner will not be out of compliance with the income determination requirements due to de minimis (minor) errors in the determination of income. HUD is proposing to define "de minimis" as any error where the calculation of income varies from the correct income by no more than 5 percent. However, the PHA or owner will still be required to take corrective action to repay a family if the error resulted in the family being overcharged for their rent.

Definition of Annual Income

The proposed regulation provides a new definition of income. This proposed rule would specify that annual income also includes the imputed return on assets over $50,000, based on the current passbook savings rate if the actual income from assets cannot be computed. It appears that this may change the requirement as it now exists to count the higher of the actual or imputed income to assets. The language in the proposed rule would require that if actual income from assets can be determined, it must be used - even if less than imputed income. The $50,000 figure will be adjusted for inflation.

Income sources that were previously included in annual income are generally unchanged.

Income Exclusions

The proposed rule removes current exclusions for inheritances, capital gains, gifts, and other sporadic income. HUD seems to be taking the position that these amounts should be included in annual income. Based on this change, realized capital gains obtained from the sale of property in a given year would be included as income. The value of unrealized capital gains - meaning the value of any increase in an asset from one year to the next - would be included under the definition of Net Family Assets.

Earnings in excess of $480 for full time student dependents age 18 or older and for adoption assistance in excess of $480 per child will still be excluded, but the $480 will be adjusted annually based on the inflation rate.

Currently, the earned income of foster adults is counted, but under the proposed regulation, such income will be excluded.

Under the proposed rule, educational assistance relating to books and room and board will also be excluded, which is not currently the case.

Under current law, only the medical portion of the Aid and Attendance program for veterans is excluded. The proposed rule excludes the full amount of Aid and Attendance.

Adjusted Income

The $480 dependent deduction would remain in place but would be adjusted annually for inflation, adjusted to the next lowest multiple of $25.

The one-time elderly deduction would increase from $400 to $525, adjusted annually for inflation.

All other deductions currently permitted would remain. However, the deduction for medical expenses, which is now permitted when such expenses exceed 3% of gross income, would not be permitted until the expenses exceed 10% of gross income. This means that families who receive a health and medical expense deduction may see a significant increase in their adjusted income and rent. If the family can demonstrate a hardship resulting in an inability to pay the rent as a result in the change in the medical deduction, the PHA or owner will be required to recalculate the family’s adjusted income. In such case, the deduction would be the amount in excess of 6.5% of the family’s annual income instead of 10%. This hardship exemption would expire at the family’s next regular income reexamination or at such time as the owner determines that the family can afford the rent based on the regular 10% adjustment, whichever comes first.

The childcare deduction remains in place, but the proposed rule allows a hardship exemption for this deduction. Under this rule, a hardship exemption would be provided to allow the deduction for reasonable childcare costs to continue in certain circumstances for a family that no longer has a member that is employed or seeking to further his or her education. The family would be required to demonstrate that their inability to pay the increased rent is due to the loss of the childcare deduction. The family would also have to demonstrate why the childcare expense remains necessary even though no family member is employed, actively seeking employment or furthering his or her education. For example, the family member may have had to temporarily suspend their educational pursuits as the result of injury or illness and due to the injury or illness, they are unable to be the primary full-time caregiver for the child. This exemption would be temporary and would end no later than the family’s next regular reexamination.

Income Limitation for Existing Public Housing Residents

While already in place through prior HUD guidance, the proposed rule would create a new 24 CFR 960-507, which would place an income limitation on a public housing tenancy for families at 120 percent of AMI.

 This limit would not apply to PHAs operating fewer than 250 public housing units that have rented to over-income households because there are no income eligible families on the waiting list or applying for public housing assistance.

If a family’s income has exceeded the 120% limit for two consecutive years, a PHA must terminate the family’s tenancy within six months after the expiration of the two year period or charge a monthly rent equal to the greater of (1) the applicable Fair Market Rent (FMR); or (2) the amount of monthly subsidy for the unit including amounts from the operating and capital fund.

Limitation on Assets

The regulation would limit the amount and type of assets that a family assisted under public housing or Section 8 can possess.

  1. Families would be ineligible for public housing or Section 8 assistance if their net family assets exceed $100,000, adjusted annually for inflation.
  2. Families could not receive assistance if they have a present ownership interest in, legal right to reside in, and the effective legal authority to sell real property in the jurisdiction in which the property is located that is suitable for occupancy by the family as a residence. This provision excludes any property that is jointly owned by a member of the family and another individual or individuals who would not reside with the family. It would also not apply if the family is receiving HUD assistance while living in the home, is a victim of domestic violence, or is offering the home for sale, as demonstrated by a listing agreement.
  3. The proposed rule excludes the value of any accounts approved by the IRS as retirement accounts, including IRAs, employer retirement plans, and retirement plans for self-employed individuals.
  4. Any income distributed from any trust will be considered income, except in the case of distributions from non-revocable trusts, made to cover the medical expenses for a minor.
  5. The proposed rule would revise the existing exclusion in HUD’s regulations for the value of necessary items of personal property, to provide that the exclusion will apply to items of personal property with a total value under $50,000, other than necessary items. Necessary items may include items such as a car used for personal transportation.

Authorization for Financial Disclosures

Under current regulation, Consent to Release forms are valid for 15-months after they are signed. The proposed regulation will make the forms valid until the earliest of: (1) the rendering of a final adverse decision for an applicant; (2) the cessation of a participant’s eligibility for assistance from HUD and the PHA; or (3) the express revocation by the applicant of the authorization, in a written notification to HUD.

The proposed regulation will also incorporate the new requirements into the HOPWA, HOME,  and HTF.

As noted earlier, comments on this proposed regulation are due by November 18, 2019. The changes outlined in this regulation are extensive and all PHAs and owners of affected properties should carefully review and comment on the proposed regulation. After the comment period, HUD will review the comments and publish a final rule with appropriate changes from the proposed rule. No final rule should be expected prior to early to mid-2020.

Latest Articles

RD to Implement HOTMA Income and Certification Rules on July 1, 2025

Although HUD has postponed implementation of HOTMA for its Multifamily Housing Programs until January 1, 2026, the USDA Rural Housing Service (RHS) Office of Multifamily Housing has announced that the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) will take effect on July 1, 2025, bringing significant changes to income calculation rules for multifamily housing programs. Key Implementation Details To accommodate the federally mandated HOTMA requirements, Rural Development published comprehensive updates to Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 on June 13, 2025. All multifamily housing tenant certifications effective on or after July 1, 2025, must comply with the new HOTMA requirements. Recognizing the challenges of the transition period, Rural Development has announced a six-month grace period. Between July 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026, the agency will not penalize multifamily housing owners for HOTMA-related tenant file errors discovered during supervisory reviews. Legislative Background HOTMA was signed into law on July 29, 2016, directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to modernize income calculation rules established initially under the Housing Act of 1937. After years of development, HUD published the Final Rule on February 14, 2023, updating critical regulations found in 24 CFR Part 5, Subpart A, Sections 5.609 and 5.611. The HOTMA changes specifically affecting the RHS Multifamily Housing portfolio are contained in 24 CFR 5.609(a) and (b) and 24 CFR 5.611, which standardize income calculation methods across federal housing programs. Notable Policy Changes Unborn Child Consideration One of the most significant changes involves how unborn children are counted for household eligibility purposes. Under the new rules, pregnant women will be considered as part of two-person households for income qualification purposes, aligning Rural Development policies with other affordable housing programs, including HUD and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs. However, the household will not receive the $480 dependent deduction until after the child is born, maintaining consistency in benefit distribution timing. Updated Certification Forms Rural Development has released an updated Form RD 3560-8 Tenant Certification, which was initially published on December 6, 2024, and revised on April 18, 2025. The form is available on the eForms Website for immediate use. The previous version of the form has been renumbered as RD 3560-8A and should be used for all tenant certifications effective before July 1, 2025. Implementation Timeline The HOTMA implementation has experienced some delays. Originally scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025, the Rural Housing Service announced on October 3, 2024, that implementation would be postponed to July 1, 2025, to allow additional time for property owners and managers to prepare. Rural Development initially implemented HOTMA through an unnumbered letter dated August 19, 2024, which outlined the overview and projected timeline for implementation. Industry Impact The HOTMA changes represent the most significant update to federal housing income calculation rules in decades, affecting thousands of multifamily housing properties across rural America. Property owners and managers have been working to update their systems and train staff on the new requirements. The six-month penalty-free transition period demonstrates Rural Development s commitment to supporting property owners through this complex regulatory change while ensuring long-term compliance with federal requirements. Moving Forward Multifamily housing stakeholders are encouraged to review the updated Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 and ensure their staff is adequately trained on the new HOTMA requirements. Property owners should also verify they have access to the updated Form RD 3560-8 and understand the timing requirements for its use. For ongoing updates and additional resources, stakeholders can subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates through the GovDelivery subscriber page. The implementation of HOTMA represents a significant step toward modernizing and standardizing income calculation methods across federal housing programs, ultimately improving consistency and fairness in affordable housing administration.

Read full story

HUD’s Proposed Rule to Eliminate Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans: A Critical Analysis

Introduction The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed eliminating the requirement for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs), a cornerstone of fair housing enforcement for decades. This proposed rule, published on June 3, 2025, represents a significant departure from established fair housing practices and raises serious concerns about the federal government s commitment to ensuring equal housing opportunities for all Americans. HUD s justification for this elimination rests on six primary arguments, each of which fails to withstand careful scrutiny and analysis. Background on Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans AFHMPs have long served as essential tools in combating housing discrimination by requiring property owners and managers to actively market housing opportunities to groups that are least likely to apply. These plans ensure that information about available housing reaches all segments of the community, not just those who traditionally have had better access to housing information networks. Analysis of HUD s Justifications 1. Claims of Inconsistency with Fair Housing Act Authority HUD argues that its authority under the Fair Housing Act and Executive Order 11063 is limited to the "prevention of discrimination, claiming that AFHM regulations go beyond this scope by requiring outreach to minority communities through targeted publications and outlets. The agency characterizes this as impermissible "racial sorting. This argument fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of discrimination and the historical context of fair housing enforcement. Information disparities have long been one of the most prevalent and effective forms of housing discrimination. When certain groups systematically lack access to information about housing opportunities, the discriminatory effect is equivalent to being explicitly excluded. The failure to provide equal access to housing information is, in itself, a discriminatory act, not merely a neutral information gap. AFHMPs address this reality by ensuring that housing information reaches all communities, particularly those that have been historically excluded from traditional marketing channels. 2. Constitutional Challenges Under Equal Protection HUD contends that AFHM regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause by requiring applicants to favor some racial groups over others. This characterization is both inaccurate and misleading. AFHMPs do not create preferences or favor any particular group. Instead, they ensure equitable access to information by targeting outreach to communities that are "least likely to apply for specific housing opportunities. This principle applies regardless of the racial or ethnic composition of those communities. For instance, housing developments located in predominantly minority neighborhoods are required to conduct affirmative marketing in white communities since white residents would be least likely to apply for housing in those areas. The regulation is race-neutral in its application it focuses on reaching underrepresented groups regardless of their racial identity. This approach promotes inclusion rather than exclusion and advances the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. 3. Delegation of Legislative Power Concerns HUD s third argument that the Fair Housing Act s authorization of AFHM regulations constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power represents perhaps the weakest aspect of their legal reasoning. Congress explicitly mandated that affirmative efforts be made to eliminate housing discrimination. As the administrative agency responsible for implementing congressional intent in this area, HUD possesses both the authority and the responsibility to determine the most effective means of carrying out this mandate. The development of specific regulatory mechanisms to achieve Congress s stated goals falls squarely within HUD s legitimate administrative authority and represents appropriate implementation of legislative intent rather than overreach. 4. The "Color Blind Policy Justification HUD frames its opposition to AFHMPs as part of a "color-blind policy approach, arguing that it is "immoral to treat racial groups differently and that the agency should not engage in "racial sorting. This argument mischaracterizes the function and operation of AFHMPs. These plans do not sort individuals by race or treat different racial groups unequally. Rather, they ensure that all groups have equal access to housing information by specifically reaching out to those who are least likely to receive such information through conventional marketing channels. Critically, AFHMPs require marketing to the general community in addition to targeted outreach. This comprehensive approach ensures broad access to housing information while addressing historical information disparities that have contributed to ongoing patterns of segregation. 5. Burden Reduction for Property Owners HUD argues that "innocent private actors should not bear the economic burden of preparing marketing plans unless they have actively engaged in discrimination. This position suggests that property owners should be exempt from fair housing obligations unless they can prove intentional discriminatory conduct. This reasoning effectively provides cover for property owners who prefer that certain groups remain unaware of housing opportunities. The "burden of creating inclusive marketing strategies is minimal compared to the societal cost of perpetuating information disparities that maintain segregated housing patterns. The characterization of comprehensive marketing as an undue burden ignores the fundamental principle that equal housing opportunity requires proactive effort, not merely passive non-discrimination. This represents a retreat to a "wink and nod approach to fair housing enforcement that falls far short of the Fair Housing Act s aspirational goals. 6. Prevention vs. Equal Outcomes HUD s final argument contends that AFHM regulations improperly focus on equalizing statistical outcomes rather than preventing discrimination. This argument creates a false dichotomy between prevention and opportunity creation. AFHMPs exist not to guarantee equal outcomes but to ensure equal opportunity by providing equal access to housing information. When information about housing opportunities is not equally available to all segments of the community, the opportunity for fair housing choice is compromised from the outset. True prevention of discrimination requires addressing the structural barriers that limit housing choices, including information disparities. The Broader Implications HUD s proposed elimination of AFHMP requirements represents a concerning retreat from decades of progress in fair housing enforcement. The proposal effectively returns to an era when discrimination, while technically prohibited, was facilitated through information control and selective marketing practices. The reality of housing markets is that access to information varies significantly across communities. Property owners and managers possess considerable discretion in how they market available units. Without regulatory requirements for inclusive outreach, there are few incentives to ensure that information reaches all potential applicants. Anyone with experience in affordable housing development and management understands that information flow can be deliberately targeted and shaped. This targeting can either expand housing opportunities for underserved communities or systematically exclude them. Marketing strategies can be designed to minimize applications from certain groups while maintaining technical compliance with non-discrimination requirements. Conclusion The six justifications offered by HUD for eliminating AFHMP requirements fail to provide compelling reasons for abandoning this critical fair housing tool. The arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how housing discrimination operates in practice and ignore the crucial role that information access plays in maintaining or dismantling segregated housing patterns. Rather than advancing fair housing goals, the proposed rule exacerbates existing disparities by removing a key mechanism for ensuring that all communities have equal access to housing information. The elimination of AFHMPs would represent a significant step backward in the ongoing effort to achieve the Fair Housing Act s vision of integrated communities and equal housing opportunities for all Americans. The current proposal suggests an agency leadership more committed to reducing the regulatory burden on property owners than to expanding housing opportunities for underserved communities. This represents a troubling departure from HUD s mission and responsibilities under federal fair housing law. Moving forward, policymakers, housing advocates, and community leaders must carefully consider whether this proposed rule serves the public interest or merely provides cover for practices that perpetuate housing segregation through more subtle but equally effective means.

Read full story

HUD Inspector General Reports Major Financial Recoveries and Oversight Improvements

Federal watchdog agency identifies nearly $500 million in recoveries while addressing critical housing challenges across America. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) has published its semiannual report to Congress, highlighting significant financial recoveries and systemic improvements across federal housing programs during the six-month period that ended on March 31, 2025. Record Financial Impact and Enforcement Actions The HUD OIG s oversight activities generated significant financial returns for taxpayers, with audit and investigative efforts yielding nearly half a billion dollars in recoveries and recommendations. Audit activities alone led to collections of $387.4 million, while identifying an additional $42.3 million in funds that could be better utilized and questioning $8.1 million in costs. Investigative efforts produced equally impressive outcomes, with over $61 million in recoveries and receivables. The enforcement actions were thorough, leading to 36 arrests, 58 indictments, and 92 administrative sanctions, including 60 debarments from federal programs. Among the most notable prosecutions, a landlord received a 17-year prison sentence for fraudulently obtaining federal rental assistance while violating the Fair Housing Act. Similarly, a businessman was sentenced to 17 years for orchestrating a reverse mortgage fraud scheme that specifically targeted elderly homeowners. Addressing Systemic Housing Quality Concerns The report highlights ongoing challenges in maintaining adequate housing conditions within HUD-assisted properties. Inspections revealed that 65% of the observed housing units had deficiencies, with 63 life-threatening issues identified. These findings underscore the continued struggle to ensure that federally subsidized housing meets basic safety and health standards. Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initial inspections of converted properties experienced significant delays, with 50% lacking timely management and occupancy reviews. The OIG has recommended improvements to the timing and completion processes of inspections to address these critical gaps. One investigation led to a civil lawsuit against a management company for lead paint safety violations impacting over 2,500 apartments, highlighting the serious health risks faced by residents in certain assisted housing properties. Fraud Risk Management Needs Enhancement The report highlights fraud risk management as a vital area needing attention, especially within large public housing authorities. An audit of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) showed a lack of a comprehensive fraud risk strategy, despite some existing anti-fraud measures. The authority s approach was described as mainly reactive instead of proactive. This finding has led the OIG to recommend evaluating fraud risk management practices at other large public housing authorities across the country, indicating that NYCHA s challenges may reflect broader systemic issues. Progress in Resolving Past Recommendations Collaboration between HUD and the OIG has produced positive outcomes in addressing previously identified issues. During the reporting period, HUD resolved 135 open recommendations, bringing the total number of outstanding recommendations down to 693. This trend shows a consistent decrease in unresolved audit findings. However, although not part of the report, it should be noted that the recent and planned cuts to HUD staff may slow the pace of corrective activity. Since October 2022, the OIG has identified 283 non-monetary benefits resulting from its recommendations, including 77 guidance enhancements, 64 process improvements, 112 increases in program effectiveness, and 30 enhanced accuracies. These improvements highlight the broader impact of oversight activities beyond direct financial recoveries. Challenges in FHA Program Oversight The Federal Housing Administration continues to face challenges in managing counterparty risks with mortgage lenders and servicers. The OIG found that Carrington Mortgage and MidFirst Bank misapplied FHA foreclosure requirements in over 18% and 14% of cases, respectively. Additionally, other lenders, including CMG Mortgage and loanDepot.com, demonstrated deficiencies in their quality control programs for FHA-insured loans. These findings underscore the necessity for improved oversight of the private entities on which HUD depends to effectively deliver housing assistance programs. Disaster Recovery and Grants Management HUD s administration of disaster recovery grants continues to encounter monitoring challenges. Although grantees under the National Disaster Resilience Program faced delays in completing activities, they remain on track to achieve their overall goals. The OIG has recommended enhanced action plans and improved documentation of collaboration with partners. In broader grants management, the OIG identified compliance issues with federal transparency requirements, noting that prime award recipients did not consistently report subawards as mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Technology and Cybersecurity Improvements HUD s information security program has achieved maturity level 3, but it has not yet reached full effectiveness. Penetration testing uncovered significant weaknesses in data protection and website security, prompting recommendations for comprehensive enhancements to safeguard sensitive information and systems. Whistleblower Protections and Transparency The OIG continues to underscore the significance of whistleblower protections in ensuring program integrity. During the reporting period, 10,214 hotline intakes were processed, with 6,631 referred to HUD program offices for action. The Public and Indian Housing office received the highest number of referrals at 5,250, highlighting ongoing concerns in this program area. Notably, the report found no attempts by HUD to interfere with OIG independence, and no instances of whistleblower retaliation were reported, indicating a healthy oversight environment. Looking Forward The semiannual report illustrates both the ongoing challenges that federal housing programs face and the effectiveness of independent oversight in addressing these issues. With nearly $500 million in financial impact and numerous process improvements, the HUD OIG s work continues to yield substantial returns on taxpayer investment while ensuring that federal housing assistance reaches those who need it most safely and effectively. The findings emphasize the crucial role of strong oversight in preserving the integrity of programs that offer housing assistance to millions of Americans while pointing out areas where ongoing attention and enhancement are vital for program success.

Read full story

HOTMA Compliance Deadline Extended to January 1, 2026 for HUD Multifamily Housing Programs

On May 30, 2025, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs issued a new Housing Notice extending the mandatory compliance date for the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA). The previous deadline of July 1, 2025, has now been extended to January 1, 2026, for all owners participating in HUD multifamily project-based rental assistance programs. What This Means for Owners and Agents Full HOTMA compliance is required for all tenant certifications dated on or after January 1, 2026. This includes adherence to both the mandatory provisions and any discretionary policies implemented by owners. Owners and agents may voluntarily adopt HOTMA compliance earlier by utilizing the rent override function in the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). Interim Compliance Guidance Until a property fully implements HOTMA, HUD advises the following: Continue to follow your current Tenant Selection Plan (TSP) as approved by HUD or your Contract Administrator. Maintain adherence to existing Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) policies and procedures. Ensure any early implementation steps are consistent with TRACS capabilities and accurately documented in tenant files. Key Takeaways New HOTMA compliance deadline: January 1, 2026 Optional early adoption is available through TRACS Existing policies remain in effect until full HOTMA compliance is achieved LIHTC Impact Owners and operators of LIHTC projects should contact the relevant Housing Finance Agency (HFA) for information on the effective date in their respective states. If you have any questions regarding the HOTMA implementation timeline, updating your policies, or the use of TRACS features, please contact our office. We are here to help ensure a smooth transition to full HOTMA compliance.

Read full story

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.