AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

CORRECTION - IRS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Average Income Test

person A.J. Johnson today 11/02/2020

Thank God my clients read better than I type. One of my more astute readers noticed a pretty significant typo in the example in #1 below. I have corrected the error - I hope it did not create too much consternation among my careful readers.

On October 30, the IRS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. This Notice concerns the LIHTC Average Income Test and outlines the current intention of the IRS with regard to certain rules governing the Average Income (AI) test.

Written comments regarding the proposed rules must be received at the IRS no later than December 29, 2020.

Background

Section 42(g)(1)(C)(i) enunciates the requirement of the AI set-aside, stating that a project meets the minimum requirements of the average income test if 40 percent or more (25 percent in New York City) of the residential units in the project are both rent-restricted and occupied by tenants whose income does not exceed the imputed income limitation designated by the owner with respect to the respective unit. The owner must designate the imputed income limitation for each unit and the designated imputed income limitation of any unit must be 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80 percent of AMGI. The Code provides that the average of the imputed income limitations designated by the taxpayer (i.e., owner) for each unit must not exceed 60 percent of AMGI.

Section 42(g)(2)(D)(iii) was added to the Code to provide a new next available unit (NAU) rule for situations in which the owner has elected the AI test. Under this new NAU rule, a unit ceases to be a low-income unit if two conditions are met: (1) the income of an occupant of a low-income unit increases above 140% of the greater of (i) 60% of AMGI, or (ii) the imputed income limitation designated by the owner with respect to the unit; and (2) any other residential rental unit in the building that is of a size comparable to, or smaller than, that unit is occupied by a new tenant whose income exceeds the applicable imputed income limitation. If the new tenant occupies a unit that was taken into account as a low-income unit prior to becoming vacant, the applicable imputed income limitation is the limitation designated with respect to the unit. If the new tenant occupies a market-rate unit, the applicable imputed income limitation is the limitation that would have to be designated with respect to the unit in order for the project to continue to maintain an average of the designations of 60% of AMGI or lower.

Under §42(g), once a taxpayer elects to use a particular set-aside test with respect to a low-income housing project, that election is irrevocable. Thus, if a taxpayer had previously elected to use the 20/50 or 40/60 test, the taxpayer may not subsequently elect to use the AI test.

Explanation of Provisions

  1. Proposed §1.42-15, Next Available Unit Rule for the Average Income Test
    1. The proposed regulations update the NAU provisions in §1.42.15. In situations where multiple units are over-income at the same time in an AI project that has a mix of low-income and market-rate units, these regulations provide that the owner need not comply with the NAU rule in a specific order. Renting any available comparable or smaller vacant unit to a qualified tenant maintains the status of all over-income units as low-income units until the next comparable or smaller unit becomes available. E.g., in a 20-unit building with nine low-income units (three units at 80% of AMGI, two units at 70% of AMGI, one unit at 40% of AMGI, and three units at 30% of AMGI), if there are two over-income units, one a 30% income three-bedroom unit and another a 70% two-bedroom unit, and the NAU is a vacant two-bedroom market-rate unit, renting the vacant two-bedroom unit to occupants at either the 30 or 70 percent income limitation would satisfy both the minimum set-aside of 40% and the average test of 60% or lower. This will be the case even if the 30% unit was the first unit to exceed the 140% income level.
  2. Proposed §1.42-19, Average Income Test
    1. Designation of Imputed Income Limitations: The proposed regulations provide that a taxpayer must designate the imputed income limitation of each unit taken into account under the AI test in accordance with (1) any procedures established by the IRS; and (2) any procedures established by the Agency that has jurisdiction over the LIHTC project that contains the units to be designated, to the extent that those Agency procedures are consistent with any IRS guidance and the proposed regulations. The IRS does agree that Agencies should generally be able to establish designation procedures that accommodate their needs. Agencies will be permitted to require income recertifications, set compliance testing periods, and adjust compliance monitoring fees to reflect the additional costs associated with monitoring the AI test.
  3. Method and Timing of Unit Designation
    1. Designation of the AI limitation with respect to a unit is, first, for Agencies to evaluate the proper mix of units in a project in making housing credit dollar amount allocations consistent with the state policies and procedures set forth in the QAP, and second, to carry out their compliance-monitoring responsibilities.
    2. The proposed regulation requires that taxpayers designate the units in accordance with the Agency procedures relating to such designations, provide that the Agency procedures are consistent with any requirements and procedures relating to the unit designation that the IRS may require.
    3. The proposed regulations provide that the taxpayer must complete the initial designation of all the units included in the AI test as of the close of the first taxable year of the credit period.
    4. The proposed regulations provide that no change to the designated income limitations may be made. Based on this, it does not appear that the "floating" of units would be permitted. This will be problematic from a project operational standpoint and should be objected to in comments submitted to the IRS.
  4. Requirement to Maintain 60 Percent AMGI Average Test and Opportunity to Take Mitigating Actions
    1. For a project electing the AI test, in addition to the project containing at least 40% low-income units, the designated imputed income limitations of the project must meet the requirement of an average test. That is, the average of the designated imputed income limitations of all low-income units (including units in excess of the minimum 40% set-aside) must be 60 percent of AMGI or lower. Residential units that are not included in the computation of the average (i.e., market units) do not count as low-income units. Accordingly, in each taxable year, the average of all the designations must be 60% of AMGI or lower.
    2. In some situations, the AI requirement may magnify the adverse consequences of a single unit’s failure to maintain its status as a low-income unit (this is a reference to the "cliff test" fear). Assume, for example, a 100% low-income project in which a single unit is taken out of service. Under the 20/50 or 40/60 set-asides, the project remains a qualified low-income housing project even though the reduction in qualified basis may trigger a corresponding amount of recapture. However, under the AI set-aside, if the failing unit has a designated imputed income limitation that is 60% or less of AMGI, the average of the limitations without that unit may now be more than 60%. In the absence of some relief provision under the AI test, the entire project would fail, and the taxpayer would experience a large recapture.
    3. Because there is no indication that Congress intended such a stark disparity between the AI set-aside and the existing 20/50 and 40/60 set-asides, the proposed regulations provide for certain mitigating actions. If the taxpayer takes a mitigating action within 60 days of the close of a year for which the AI test might be violated, to taxpayer avoids total disqualification of the project and significantly reduces the amount of recapture.
  5. Results Following an Opportunity to Take Mitigating Actions
    1. The proposed regulations provide that, after any mitigating actions, if, prior to the end of the 60th day following the year in which the project would otherwise fail the 60% test, the project satisfies all other requirements to be a qualified low-income housing project, then as a result of the mitigating action, the project is treated as having satisfied the 60% or lower average test at the close of the immediately preceding year. However, if no mitigating actions are taken, the project fails to be a qualified low-income housing project as of the close of the year in which the project fails the AI test.
  6. Descriptions of Mitigating Actions
    1. The proposed regulations provide for two possible mitigating actions: (1) the taxpayer may convert one or more market-rate units to low-income units. Immediately prior to becoming a low-income unit, that unit must be vacant or occupied by a tenant who qualifies for residence in a low-income unit (or units) and whose income is not greater than the new imputed income limitation of that unit (or units); or (2) the taxpayer may identify one or more low-income units as "removed" units. A unit may be a removed unit only if it complies with all the requirements of Section 42 to be a low-income unit. If the taxpayer elects to identify a low-income unit as a removed unit, the designated imputed income limitation of the unit is not changed.
  7. Tax Treatment of Removed Units
    1. A removed unit is not included in computing the average of the imputed income limitations of the low-income units under the 60% or lower AI test. If the absence of one or more removed units from the computation causes fewer than 40% (or 25% in New York City) of the residential units to be taken into account in computing the average, the project fails to be a qualified low-income housing project. I.e., the project fails the minimum set-aside test. Also, a removed unit is not treated as a low-income unit for purposes of credit calculation. However, a removed unit will not be subject to recapture (unless the removal of the unit results in a failure to meet the minimum set-aside).
  8. Request for Comments on an Alternative Mitigating Action Approach
    1. This is the one area of the proposed regulation for which the IRS is especially interested in receiving comments. The alternative being proposed by the IRS is that, in the event that the average test rises above 60% of AMGI as of the close of a taxable year, due to a low-income unit or units ceasing to be treated as a low-income unit or units, the owner may take the mitigating action of redesignating the imputed income limit of a low-income unit to return the average test to 60% of AMGI or lower. If under this approach, a redesignation causes a low-income unit to exceed 140% of the applicable income limit, the NAU would apply.

Proposed Applicability Date

The amendments to the NAU regulation (1.42-15) are proposed to apply to occupancy beginning 60 or more days after the date the regulations are published as final regulations. The AI test regulations (1.42-19) are proposed to apply to taxable years beginning after the date the regulations are published as final regulations. However, taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations relating to the NAU rule for occupancy beginning after October 30, 2020, and on or before 60 days after the date, the regulations are published as a final regulation. Taxpayers may also rely on the AI test proposed regulations for taxable years beginning after October 30, 2020, and on or before the date those regulations are published as final regulations.

Summary

These proposed regulations do provide some clarity relating to the Available Unit Rule and assist in our understanding that the IRS does not believe a project should lose all credit due to the failure of one unit as a low-income unit (unless the minimum set-aside is not met). However, a significant problem with the proposed regulation is that designations, once set, cannot be changed. The industry will certainly be objecting to this provision during the 60-day comment period. There is one other area on which clarity should be sought. All the mitigation examples in the proposed regulation include a case where a unit is lost due to no longer being suitable for occupancy. Left unanswered is what happens if a low-income unit is occupied by an ineligible household. Does the fact that the owner designation for the unit still results in the 60% AI test being met keep the property in compliance with the 60% test result in the loss of only that one unit with no requirement for mitigation measures? Or, would this unit also no longer be considered a low-income unit for purposes of the 60% average? Also, what if the issue that would remove a unit from the low-income count occurs in one year, is not discovered by the owner, and is discovered by the State Agency during a review that occurs more than 60 days after the end of the tax year in which the event occurred? While this could not happen in the case of a habitability issue, it could certainly occur relative to resident eligibility.  Comments seeking clarity on the circumstances under which a unit may no longer be counted toward the 60% average are a certainty. Until this issue is clarified, the safest course of action for owners will be to follow the mitigation alternatives outlined in the proposed regulation in any case where a low-income unit is either not in service or rented to an ineligible household.

It is recommended that all LIHTC industry participants review the proposed regulations and make comments to the IRS by the deadline date of December 29, 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.