AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

Treasury Inspector General Issues Report Critical of IRS LIHTC Oversight

person A.J. Johnson today 02/05/2022

On January 26, 2022, the Treasury Inspector General (IG) for Tax Administration released a report titled, "Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program Can Be Improved."

The audit was initiated at the request of the previous Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. The review assessed IRS procedures and processes to ensure that Housing Credit Agencies (HCAs), building owners, and taxpayers are compliant with the requirements of the LIHTC program.

The report was highly critical of IRS oversight of the program. The Inspector General found that forms submitted for the LIHTC program had significant issues with data reliability, reconciliation discrepancies, and missing first-year elections that increase the risk of undetected errors and noncompliance. In addition, it found nonprofit set-asides were below the minimum requirement, certification discrepancies, and inconsistent reporting of building non-compliance and dispositions.

There were potentially large dollar amounts of questionable LIHTC claims based on information from key forms and schedules submitted to the IRS. For example, approximately 67,000 claims for Tax Years 2015 - 2019 totaling almost $15.6 billion lacked or did not match supporting documentation due to potential reporting errors or noncompliance.

Recent IRS examination activity has not identified significant noncompliance. Only a small number of tax returns claiming the LIHTC are being selected each year for examination, and 33% of those are closed before an examination was conducted. For those examined, most resulted in no additional tax assessment - i.e., no change in the return. According to the Inspector General, this examination no-change rate is significantly higher than the average of similar taxpayers.

For calendar years 2003 - 2019, the IRS conducted compliance reviews on only eight of the 56 HCAs that have tax credit program administrative responsibilities.

Inspector General Recommendations

The report contains seven recommendations that include implementing additional system validity checks to improve the accuracy and reliability of the information in the LIHTC database; establishing an examination selection process for questionable LIHTC claims and allocating additional resources, when available, to allow for increased compliance monitoring reviews of the HCAs.

The IRS agreed with five of the seven recommendations. The IRS disagreed with the recommendation to develop an action plan to identify possible causes and correct reporting errors on LIHTC documents, stating that these reporting errors are corrected through existing procedures. The IRS also did not agree with the recommendation to allocate additional resources to increase HCA compliance monitoring reviews. However, the investigation found that 25 HCAs have been identified for contact, which could take many years based on past resource commitments.

Some Observations About the Report

The report contained some interesting tidbits that are of interest to the LIHTC community, one being a confirmation that to date, most IRS audits have been triggered by the issuance of 8823s. It is also interesting to note that the low level of findings during IRS audits was a criticism of the IG. No consideration was given to the fact that the possible low rate of negative audit findings is due to the high degree of self-policing within the affordable housing industry. The LIHTC program is the most comprehensively supervised affordable housing program in history, with oversight from management, investors, and State and local agencies.

One underlying current running through the report was an indirect criticism of the Housing Credit Agencies. Many cases of state agency failure were noted in the report, which provides the impetus for the recommendation to increase IRS scrutiny of these agencies. Some of the HCA related data includes:

  • The investigation identified 598 of 730 Forms 8823 originally submitted by the HCAs that reported a building disposition were not received by the LIHTC unit within the required 45 days after the event. All 16 of the amended Forms 8823 were received between 701 to 1,645 days after building disposition. To those of us in the industry, these numbers are not surprising. HCAs can only report building dispositions (e.g., sale, foreclosure, destruction) that they are aware of. Property owners often fail to inform the agencies of these events.
  • The investigation revealed a weakness in the Form 8823. It was determined that while the law requires 8823s to be sent by the HCAs to the IRS within 45 days after the deadline for owner correction of noncompliance, there is no way to track the 45-day rule. This is because the 8823 only requires the noncompliance date and the correction date. It does not show the correction deadline date established by the HCA.
  • There were 6,983 original Forms 8823 and 205 amended Forms 8823 with received and building noncompliance dates but no building correction date. Using the noncompliance date when no correction date was provided, the study identified 2,901 of 6,983 original and 100 of 205 amended Forms 8823 that were received over one year from the noncompliance date. For those forms that provided a correction date, the study identified 1,851 of 46,355 original and 37 of 207 amended Forms 8823 that were received over one year from the correction date. It is clear from the data that many HCA are not submitting the 8823s to the IRS in a timely manner.
  • Reports of noncompliance varied greatly between the HCAs. Incredibly, three HCAs (not identified in the report) have never reported building noncompliance, and six HCAs have years-long gaps between reports of building noncompliance.
  • The IRS has no enforcement power against the HCAs that submit untimely 8823s and can only encourage timely reporting.
  • Many HCAs are understaffed and report only egregious noncompliance. While the IRS encourages reporting of all noncompliance, there are no consequences if the HCAs do not report.
  • The investigation also discovered many errors on Forms 8609, which are used to allocate credits and serve as the taxpayers first year certification. Examples include:
    • 2,307 without an address for the building;
    • 3,384 without a name and date for the HCA signature, which raises questions about whether credits were actually allocated;
    • 4,175 without a building owner name and six with "NO NAME" for building owner name;
    • 2,617 without an address for the building owner;
    • 1,287 with owner signature dates after the date the form was received by the IRS, including future dates (e.g., February 21, 2047 and May 9, 2061);
    • First-year elections are not always being made by owners, including:
      • Election to treat the building as a multiple building project (Line 8b) - 59,867 forms were checked "yes," 4,217 were checked "no," and 4,094 had no box checked.
      • If box 6a or 6d is checked for a newly constructed building (or rehab expenditures), 177 records checked "yes," meaning that the federal proceeds (most likely tax-exempt bonds) would be excluded from eligible basis. 20,239 forms did not contain an election when required and 11,837 contained an answer when not required.
      • Line 10a, Election to begin the credit period the year after the building is placed in service - 21,052 forms had nothing checked.
      • Election for minimum set-aside (Line 10c) - 237 of the forms had no election.
    • Despite all the 8609 errors, the number and types of errors made by building owners are not being identified, corrected, or summarized for analysis.

Recommendations & IRS Response

Recommendation #1: Ensure that additional system validity checks are implemented to improve the accuracy and reliability of the information in HCA and building owner portions of the LIHTC database.

  • IRS Response: IRS agreed and indicated that a system change request was submitted to enhance data input validity checks for Form 8609. The additional validity checks will result in improve accuracy and completeness of the reports. However, due to budget constraints, competing priorities, and resource allocations, the IRS did not agree to ensure additional validity checks for other forms.

Recommendation #2: Establish an effective quality review system for the processing of LIHTC forms received from the HCAs and building owners to identify areas requiring corrective action, employee training, or outreach.

  • IRS Response: The IRS agreed and will provide additional training on forms processing.

Recommendation #3: Establish an examination (audit) selection process for business owners submitting questionable Forms 8609-A that do not correspond to Forms 8609.

  • IRS Response: The IRS agreed and indicated that they will develop a process to compare Forms 8609-A with Forms 8609.

Recommendation #4: Evaluate possible revisions to Forms 3800, 8586, and 8609-A to remove the option to make a current year LIHTC claim for a pre-2008 building.

  • IRS Response: The IRS agreed and will make the recommended form changes.

Recommendation #5: Determine the feasibility of establishing an audit selection process for taxpayers submitting questionable LIHTC claims on Forms 3800 that do not correspond to supporting Forms 8609-A or pass-through Schedules K-1.

  • IRS Response: The IRS agreed and will make recommendations for a selection process to compare information on the forms.

Recommendation #6: Develop an action plan to identify possible causes and correct reporting errors on LIHTC documents.

  • IRS Response: The IRS disagreed with this recommendation. The Agency stated that reporting errors on LIHTC documents are corrected through existing processes.

Recommendation #7: Allocate additional resources, when available, to allow for increased HCA compliance monitoring reviews.

  • IRS Response: The IRS disagreed with this recommendation. The Agency stated that they recognize an oversight responsibility to review the credit allocation practices and compliance monitoring processes of the HCAs. However, they do not plan to commit additional resources to HCA compliance monitoring reviews due to competing resource needs.

Problems with the Report

There are a number of issues with the IG report. To begin with, it significantly overstates the extent of current concerns. The analysis includes records dating back eight years, which is prior to the IRS’s 2017 implementation of a new LIHTC database, which showed significant improvements in tracking compliance.

For example, the IG report indicates a nearly 46% error rate on Forms 8609s submitted by building owners, but only 3% occurred after the 2017 database upgrade. When looking at Forms 8609s submitted by HCAs, the IG identified 13,498 errors, none of which occurred after the new database was in place. When reviewing Form 8823 submissions, the IG reported 2,337 errors, but only 4% happened after the implementation of the new database.

What Can LIHTC Owners Expect Based on the Report?

As with most reports of this type, it will gather dust on IRS office shelves. However, since it was requested by Congress (who holds the IRS purse strings), the Agency will make moves in certain areas.

One will be closer attention to the correlation between 8609-As and 8609s. The IRS is planning on putting procedures in place to improve in this area by February 2023.

The Agency made it clear in their response to the report that they will continue to carefully review 8609s and will return incorrectly completed forms to taxpayers for correction. In addition, the service will increase scrutiny on owners who do not comply with IRS requests relative to document completion.

Ultimately, the report does serve a purpose in that it points out some of the weaknesses with program administration - both at the state and federal levels. These weaknesses have now been pointed out to Congress. Owners and stakeholders in the LIHTC program will be wise to pay attention to the issues noted in this report and work to improve recordkeeping and reporting at the project level. Housing Credit Agencies should use the report as a blueprint for how they may improve their own procedures - especially with regard to the timely reporting of noncompliance.

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.