AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

HUD HOTMA Rules Clarify and Change the Treatment of Assets

person A.J. Johnson today 02/14/2024

Introduction

HUD Notice H 2013-10 expands upon the Final Rule for implementing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA). This final rule makes some changes to the way managers of HUD-assisted housing will deal with assets on HUD-assisted properties. Since LIHTC properties are required to follow HUD rules relative to the determination of income, these changes also apply to tax credit properties.

Net family assets are defined as the net cash value of all assets owned by the family, after deducting reasonable costs that would be incurred in disposing of real property, savings, stocks, bonds, and other forms of investment, except as excluded by regulation.

Assets with Negative Equity

While assets with negative equity are still considered assets, the cash value of real property or other assets with negative equity are considered to have zero value for purposes of calculating net family assets. Negative numbers are never used in the calculation of asset value.

Assets Owned by a Business Entity

If a business entity (e.g., LLC or LP) owns an asset, then the family’s asset is their ownership stake in the business. The actual assets of the business are not counted as family assets. However, if the family holds the assets in their name (e.g., they own 1/3 of a restaurant) rather than in the name of the business entity, then the percentage value of the asset owned by the family is what is counted toward the net family assets (e.g., one-third of the value of the restaurant).

Jointly Owned Assets

For assets jointly owned by the family and one or more individuals outside of the assisted family, owners must include the total value of the asset in the determination of net family assets, unless the asset is otherwise excluded, or unless the assisted family can demonstrate that the asset is inaccessible to them, or that they cannot dispose of any portion of the asset without the consent of another owner who refuses to comply. If the family demonstrates that they can only access a portion of an asset, then only that portion’s value shall be included in the calculation of net family assets.

Exclusions from Assets

Required exclusions from net family assets include the following:

  • The value of necessary items of personal property;
  • The value of all non-necessary items of personal property with a total combined value of $50,000 or less, annually adjusted for inflation;
  • The value of any retirement plan recognized by the IRS, including IRAs, employer retirement plans, and retirement plans for self-employed individuals;
  • The value of real property that the family does not have the effective legal authority to sell. Examples of this include (1) co-ownership situations {including situations where one owner is a victim of domestic violence} where one party cannot unilaterally sell the property, (2) property that is tied up in litigation, and (3) inherited property in dispute;
  • The value of any education savings account under Section 530 of the IRC 1986, the value of any qualified tuition program under Section 529 of the IRC, and the contributions to and distributions from any Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) account authorized under Section 529A of the IRC;
  • The value of any "baby bond" account created, authorized, or funded by the federal, state, or local government (money held in trust by the government for children until they are adults);
  • Interests in Indian trust land;
  • Equity in a manufactured home where the family receives assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program;
  • Equity in a property under the Homeownership Option where the family receives assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program;
  • Family Self-Sufficiency accounts;
  • Federal or state tax refunds or refundable tax credits for 12 months after receipt by the family;
  • The full amount of assets held in an irrevocable trust; and
  • The full amount of assets held in a revocable trust where a member of the family is the beneficiary, but the grantor and trustee of the trust is not a member of the family.

Necessary & Non-Necessary Personal Property

Necessary personal property is excluded from assets. Non-necessary personal property with a combined value of more than $50,000 (adjusted by inflation) is an asset. When the combined value of non-necessary personal property does not exceed $50,000, it is excluded from assets.

All assets are categorized as either real property (e.g., land, a home) or personal property. Personal property includes tangible items, like boats, as well as intangible items, like bank accounts. For example, a family could have non-necessary personal property with a combined value that does not exceed $50,000 but also own real property such as a parcel of land. While the non-necessary personal property would be excluded from assets, the real property would be included - regardless of its value, unless it meets a specific exclusion.

Necessary personal property are items essential to the family for the maintenance, use, and occupancy of the premises as a home; or they are necessary for employment, education, or health and wellness. Necessary personal property includes more than mere items that are indispensable to the bare existence of the family. It may include personal effects (such as items that are ordinarily worn or used by the individual), items that are convenient or useful to a reasonable existence, and items that support and facilitate daily life within the family’s home. Necessary personal property does not include bank accounts, other financial investments, or luxury items.

Determining what is a necessary item of personal property is very fact-specific and will require a case-by-case analysis. Following are examples of necessary and non-necessary personal property (not an exhaustive list).

Necessary Personal Property

  • Vehicles used for personal or business transportation;
  • Furniture and appliances;
  • Common electronics such as TV, radio, DVD players, gaming systems;
  • Clothing;
  • Personal effects that are not luxury items (e.g., toys and books);
  • Wedding & Engagement rings;
  • Jewelry used in religious or cultural celebrations or ceremonies;
  • Medical equipment & supplies;
  • Musical instruments used by the family;
  • Personal computers, tablets, phones, and related equipment;
  • Educational materials; and
  • Exercise Equipment

Non-Necessary Personal Property

  • RVs not needed for day-to-day transportation, including motor homes, campers, and all-terrain vehicles;
  • Bank accounts or other financial investments (e.g., checking/savings account, stocks/bonds);
  • Recreational boats or watercraft;
  • Expensive jewelry without cultural or religious significance or which has no family significance;
  • Collectibles, such as coins or stamps;
  • Equipment/machinery that is not part of an active business; and
  • Items such as gems, precious metals, antique cars, artwork, etc.

Trusts

Any trust (both revocable and non-revocable) that is not under the control of the family is excluded from assets.

For a revocable trust to be excluded from net family assets, no family or household member may be the account’s trustee.

A revocable trust that is under the control of the family or household (e.g., the grantor is a member of the assisted family or household) is included in net family assets, and, therefore, income earned on the trust is included in the family’s income from assets. This also means that PHAs/MFH Owners will calculate imputed income on the revocable trust if net family assets are more than $50,000, as adjusted by inflation, and actual income from the trust cannot be calculated (e.g. if the trust is comprised of farmland that is not in use).

Actual Income from a Trust

If the Owner determines that a revocable trust is included in the calculation of net family assets, then the actual income earned by the revocable trust is also included in the family’s income. Where an irrevocable trust is excluded from net family assets, the Owner must not consider actual income earned by the trust (e.g., interest earned, rental income if the property is held in the trust) for so long as the income from the trust is not distributed.

Trust Distributions & Annual Income

A revocable trust is considered part of net family assets: If the value of the trust is considered part of the family’s net assets, then distributions from the trust are not considered income to the family. 

Revocable or irrevocable trust not considered part of net family assets: If the value of the trust is not considered part of the family’s net assets, then distributions from the trust are treated as follows: (1) All distributions from the trust’s principal are excluded from income. (2) Distributions of income earned by the trust (i.e., interest, dividends, realized gains, or other earnings on the trust’s principal), are included as income unless the distribution is used to pay for the health and medical expenses for a minor.

Actual & Imputed Income from Assets

The actual income from assets is always included in a family’s annual income, regardless of the total value of net family assets or whether the asset itself is included or excluded from net family assets unless that income is specifically excluded.

Income or returns from assets are generally considered to be interest, dividend payments, and other actual income earned on the asset, and not the increase in market value of the asset.

Imputed income from assets is no longer determined based on the greater of actual or imputed income from the assets. Instead, imputed asset income must be calculated for specific assets when three conditions are met: (1) The value of net family assets exceeds $50,000 (as adjusted for inflation); (2) The specific asset is included in net family assets; and (3) Actual asset income cannot be calculated for the specific asset. Imputed asset income is calculated by multiplying the net cash value of the asset, after deducting reasonable costs that would be incurred in disposing of the asset, by the HUD-published passbook rate. If the actual income from assets can be computed for some assets but not all assets, then PHAs/MFH Owners must add up the actual income from the assets, where actual income can be calculated, then calculate the imputed income for the assets where actual income could not be calculated. After the PHA/MFH owner has calculated both the actual income and imputed income, the housing provider must combine both amounts to account for income on net family assets with a combined value of over $50,000. When the family’s net family assets do not exceed $50,000 (as adjusted for inflation), imputed income is not calculated. Imputed asset income is never calculated on assets that are excluded from net family assets. When actual income for an asset — which can equal $0 — can be calculated, imputed income is not calculated for that asset.

Owners should not conflate an asset with an actual return of $0 with an asset for which an actual return cannot be computed, such as could be the case for some non-financial assets that are items of nonnecessary personal property. If the asset is a financial asset and there is no income generated (for example, a bank account with a 0 percent interest rate or a stock that does not issue cash dividends), then the asset generates zero actual asset income, and imputed income is not calculated. When a stock issues dividends in some years but not others (e.g., due to market performance), the dividend is counted as the actual return when it is issued, and when no dividend is issued, the actual return is $0. When the stock never issues dividends, the actual return is consistently $0.

Self-Certification of Net Family Assets Equal to or Less Than $50,000

Owners may determine net family assets based on a self-certification by the family that the family’s total assets are equal to or less than $50,000, adjusted annually for inflation, without taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the declaration at admission and/or reexamination. Owners are not required to obtain third-party verification of assets if they accept the family’s self-certification of net family assets. When Owners accept self-certification of net family assets at reexamination, the Owner must fully verify the family’s assets every three years. Owners may follow a pattern of relying on self-certification for two years in a row and fully verifying assets in the third year.

The family’s self-certification must state the amount of income the family anticipates receiving from such assets. The actual income declared by the family must be included in the family’s income unless specifically excluded from income under HUD regulations. Owners must clarify, during the self-certification process, which assets are included/excluded from net family assets.  Owners may combine the self-certification of net family assets and questions inquiring about a family’s present ownership interest in any real property into one form.

Bottom Line

Owners and managers of properties that are subject to HOTMA should familiarize themselves with these new asset rules and ensure they are in place. HUD properties will be required to implement the rules when they put the HOTMA changes into effect in 2024. LIHTC properties should consult the appropriate HFA to determine when the new rules must be followed.

Latest Articles

HUD Publishes Proposed Rule on Reducing Barriers to Affordable Housing - Including New Criminal Screening Requirements

On April 10, 2024, HUD published a proposed rule titled "Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing. Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than June 9, 2024. In the proposed rule, HUD assumes that everyone deserves to be considered as the individual they are, and everyone needs a safe and affordable place to live. For people with criminal records, having a stable place to live is critical to rebuilding a productive life. Yet too many people who apply for housing opportunities are not given full consideration as individuals but instead are denied opportunities simply because they have a criminal record. Criminal records are often incomplete or inaccurate, and criminal conduct that occurred years ago may not indicate a person's current fitness as a tenant. Criminal screening policies disproportionately impact Black and Brown people, Native Americans, other people of color, people with disabilities, and other historically marginalized and underserved communities. In April 2016, HUD issued guidance to all housing providers cautioning that unnecessary and unwarranted exclusions based on criminal records may create a risk of Fair Housing Act liability because they can have an unjustified disparate impact based on race. That guidance advised housing providers that individualized assessments considering relevant mitigating information are likely to have a less discriminatory effect than categorical exclusions based on criminal record. HUD believes that people are still excluded from HUD-assisted housing for convictions that do not reflect current fitness for tenancy, such as stale convictions dating back more than a quarter century or those for low-level, nonviolent offenses, such as riding a subway without paying a fare. As mounting evidence shows, such exclusions do little to further legitimate interests such as safety, as an increasing number of housing providers and public housing agencies (PHAs) now recognize. This proposed rule would help standardize practices within HUD programs concerning prospective tenants. The goal is to provide clearer rules and standards to help HUD-subsidized housing providers, and PHAs carry out the legitimate and important ends of maintaining the safety of their properties and the surrounding communities and following federal law (which requires exclusion from HUD-assisted housing of people who are engaged in certain conduct or have certain criminal history), but without engaging in overbroad or discriminatory denials of housing. This proposed rule would establish in HUD program regulations a set of practices that already are required of housing providers under state and local law in much of the country; that are consistent with guidance HUD has provided to all housing providers to comply with the Fair Housing Act and to HUD-subsidized providers and PHAs to comply with program rules; and that, as HUD has heard from its industry partners, are already being used and work in practice to effectively balance various equities. In doing so, the proposed rule would clarify a legal landscape many HUD-subsidized housing providers and PHAs find confusing, leading to divergent practices within HUD programs. While existing HUD regulations generally permit a fact-specific, individualized assessment approach, they have not been updated to require it. This proposed rule would cover various HUD programs, including public housing and Section 8 assisted housing programs, as well as the Section 221(d)(3) below-market interest rate (BMIR) program, the Section 202 program for the elderly, the Section 811 program for persons with disabilities, and the Section 236 interest reduction payment program, and in doing so would amend existing programmatic regulations. A summary of some of how these changes would impact different program rules is explained below: Clarifying what counts as relevant criminal activity and how recently it must have occurred: Existing regulations permit an assisted owner or PHA (for voucher applicants) to prohibit admission when the household has engaged in "in a reasonable time prior to admission, (1) drug-related criminal activity; (2) violent criminal activity; (3) other criminal activity that would threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other residents; or (4) other criminal activity that would threaten the health or safety of the PHA or owner or any employee, contractor, subcontractor or agent of the PHA or owner. While public housing regulations do not have a similar "reasonable time prior to admission qualifier, there is a "relevancy qualifier preceding these same four substantive categories of criminal activity. Under the proposed rule, PHAs and assisted owners would still be able to deny admission for these four categories of criminal activity; however, the proposed rule would clarify that assisted owners and PHAs may not deny admission for categories of criminal activity beyond those specified in the regulations. The proposed rule would require establishing a "lookback period limiting the reliance on old convictions. For all programs, it would provide that prohibiting admission for some time longer than three years following any particular criminal activity is "presumptively unreasonable. The general rule would be that PHAs and assisted owners cannot make decisions based on criminal history that research indicates is not predictive of future criminal activity; that is irrelevant to safety, health, or fitness for tenancy; or that is based on incomplete or unreliable evidence of criminal activity ( e.g., a record for an arrest that has not resulted in a conviction). Specifying procedural requirements before denying admission: Program regulations require PHAs and assisted owners to follow various procedural steps before denying admission based on a criminal record but do not provide important specifics. For example, PHAs and assisted owners must notify the household of the proposed denial, supply a copy of a criminal record, and provide an opportunity to dispute the accuracy and relevancy of the record before the denial of admission. However, the current regulations do not specify how much notice a household must receive or the meaning of the opportunity to dispute the accuracy and relevancy of the record before a denial of admission. The proposed rule would clarify that tenants shall be given at least 15 days to challenge the information's accuracy and relevance and provide any relevant mitigating information before an admissions decision. Requiring a fact-specific and individualized assessment before making a discretionary decision to deny tenancy or admission based on criminal history: Current program regulations note that PHAs and assisted owners "may consider certain circumstances before making a discretionary denial of admission or termination decision, and the different program regulations provide incomplete and inconsistent lists of appropriate considerations. HUD is proposing amended language that would make clear that for all discretionary admission and termination determinations, PHAs, and assisted owners must consider relevant mitigating circumstances. For admissions decisions, the proposed rule would require a fact-specific and individualized assessment of the applicant, adopting a term and concept familiar in the industry but not previously required in HUD programs. The proposed rule would harmonize the non-exhaustive list of relevant considerations across programs, setting out some specific factors that will frequently be considered relevant, such as how long ago the offense or incident occurred, mitigating conduct that has taken place since ( e.g., evidence of rehabilitation and successful reentry, including employment and tenancy), and completion of drug or alcohol treatment programs. So long as housing providers consider the circumstances relevant to the decision, the ultimate decision to deny tenancy or admission would remain within their discretion. Revising and making available tenant selection plans and PHA administrative plans: Under existing rules, owners participating in certain assisted housing programs must have a written tenant selection plan. The proposed rule would require these owners to update their tenant selection plans to reflect the relevant policies they employ within six months following this rule's effective date. The proposed rule would also require PHAs and owners to make PHA administrative plans and tenant selection policies more widely available. Providing additional guidance for PHAs and owners conducting screenings: When PHAs access criminal records from law enforcement agencies, existing regulations require PHAs to obtain consent from families before accessing their criminal records, require them to be kept confidential, and permit disclosure under limited circumstances. The proposed rule would broaden these protections to apply to all criminal record searches conducted by PHAs and assisted owners where appropriate. The proposed rule also would specify that, except in circumstances where housing providers and PHAs rely exclusively on an applicant's self-disclosure of a criminal record, they may not bar admission for failure to disclose a criminal record unless that criminal record would have been material to the decision. Clarifying mandatory admission denial standards: Language concerning mandatory admission denials based on criminal activity and alcohol abuse, which are required by federal statute, is largely left unchanged by the proposed rule. For example, the requirement that an assisted owner or PHA prohibit the admission of individuals "if any household member has been evicted from federally assisted housing for drug-related criminal activity in the last three years unless the "the circumstances leading to the eviction no longer exist has not been modified. Nor have any modifications been made to the prohibition on admission to HUD-assisted housing to those who are "subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program. The requirement that assisted owners or PHAs must establish standards to prohibit the admission of individuals "currently engaged in illegal use of a drug and in situations where individuals' pattern of illegal drug use or alcohol abuse may interfere "with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other resident[s] would remain substantively unchanged. However, HUD proposes adding greater clarification to the definition of "currently engaging in, which, as described above, triggers a mandatory exclusion concerning illegal drug use and discretionary exclusion authority concerning certain criminal activity. The existing regulations provide only that currently engaging in "means that the individual has engaged in the behavior recently enough to justify a reasonable belief that the individual's behavior is current. The proposed rule would provide that a PHA or assisted owner may not rely solely on criminal activity that occurred 12 months ago or longer to establish that behavior is "current. The proposed rule would also require that any such determination be based on a preponderance of the evidence standard and that such a determination consider mitigating evidence, for example, that the individual has completed substance use treatment services. Specifying standards of proof in admissions and terminations decisions based on criminal activity: Existing regulations are largely silent on the standards of proof that must be met for admissions and terminations decisions based on criminal activity. Where they speak to the subject at all, they state broadly that an assisted owner or PHA may terminate a tenancy when a household member engages in certain criminal activity, regardless of whether they have been arrested or convicted for such activity, and without satisfying the heightened standard of proof necessary to support a criminal conviction. There is no similar provision in existing regulations regarding admission decisions, nor do existing rules specifically discuss how PHAs and assisted owners may or may not consider arrest records in making either admissions or termination determinations. The proposed rule would (1) prohibit the consideration of arrest records standing alone (in the absence of other reliable evidence of criminal conduct) for any exclusion from the housing and (2) provide that criminal conduct or any other finding on which such an exclusionary decision is made must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. This would establish and clarify certain evidentiary standards and requirements for making key determinations in a manner that is largely consistent with what HUD already recommends in guidance for its housing providers and PHAs. Implementing limited changes affecting owners accepting Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) and Project Based Vouchers (PBVs): Most of the changes in the proposed rule would not apply to owners who participate in the HCV or PBV programs. The proposed rule would not apply most changes to owners participating in the HCV or PBV programs to avoid discouraging owner participation. Those owners who participate in the HCV or PBV programs would still be able to screen for drug-related criminal activity and other criminal activity that is a threat to the health, safety, or property of others. The proposed rule would add language to clarify that this includes "violent criminal activity and that owners in the HCV and PBV program must also conduct any screening consistent with the Fair Housing Act, which was not previously spelled out in program regulations. Additionally, for tenancy terminations, HUD proposes the same standards regarding the preponderance of evidence and arrest records as would apply for PHAs and assisted owners. Finally, existing regulations note that owners "may consider certain mitigating circumstances when terminating a tenancy. HUD proposes that where termination is based on criminal activity, illegal drug use, or alcohol abuse, an owner may consider an updated set of circumstances the same circumstances, including mitigating and contextualizing evidence, that PHAs and assisted owners would be required to consider in the context of admissions and termination decisions. Collectively, the principles embodied by this proposed rule are meant to ensure that people are considered individuals in HUD-assisted housing. Requiring housing providers and PHAs to make fact-specific determinations based on the totality of the circumstances, rather than denying opportunities based solely on criminal history, would help ensure that stale, inaccurate, and/or incomplete evidence and stigma surrounding people with criminal justice system involvement do not create unnecessary and counterproductive barriers to safe and affordable housing. Research shows that expanding access to such housing reduces the risk of future criminal justice system involvement and, in doing so, strengthens public safety. That does not mean everyone with a criminal history will satisfy legitimate tenant screening criteria that apply to all applicants equally. Housing providers would retain the authority to screen out individuals who they determine, based on consideration of relevant information, pose a threat to the health and safety of other tenants. The proposed rule would bar the categorical, blanket exclusion of people with criminal records without regard to all relevant and contextualizing evidence and consideration of the full life someone has lived. Bottom Line HUD's proposed rule, "Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing," aims to address discriminatory practices hindering individuals with criminal records from accessing safe, affordable housing. Emphasizing the importance of considering individuals' circumstances, the rule challenges blanket denials based solely on criminal history. HUD highlights the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and the flawed nature of relying on outdated or incomplete records. The rule advocates for individualized assessments, considering mitigating factors like rehabilitation efforts and the relevance of past offenses to tenancy. It outlines procedural requirements for admissions decisions, ensuring transparency and fairness for applicants. While maintaining safety standards, the rule discourages overbroad exclusions and encourages housing providers to adopt a nuanced approach in accordance with Fair Housing Act principles. The proposed changes will apply to various HUD programs, including public housing and Section 8 assistance. However, exceptions are made for Housing Choice Voucher and Project-Based Voucher programs to maintain owner participation. Overall, the rule seeks to promote access to housing while safeguarding community well-being. It acknowledges the potential for rehabilitation and the value of considering each individual's unique circumstances. Owners and operators of HUD programs affected by the Proposed Rule are encouraged to review the rule and provide comments to HUD no later than June 9, 2024.

Read full story

HUD Publishes Final Rule Persons with Criminal Convictions to Engage in Testing for Fair Housing Violations

On April 1, 2024, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a final rule on Expanding the Fair Housing Testing Pool for FHIP and FHAP Funded Entities. This document is a final rule issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding using fair housing testers with criminal convictions. The rule eliminates certain restrictions and responds to the need for a diverse group of testers with actual criminal convictions to fully investigate potentially discriminatory criminal background screening policies under federal civil rights laws. The document provides background information on the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on various protected characteristics. It explains that FHIP and FHAP were established to fund fair housing enforcement activities by government agencies and private non-profits. Testing is a key tool these entities use to investigate potential violations of the Fair Housing Act. The document also discusses the current regulatory landscape, which includes restrictions on using testers with criminal convictions. The proposed rule was issued in response to a directive from HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge to review HUD programs and remove barriers that prevent individuals with criminal histories from participating. The proposed rule received public comments, both in support and opposition. Supporters of the rule argued that it would expand opportunities for individuals with criminal convictions, promote equity and civil rights, and improve fair housing testing. Opponents expressed concerns about the credibility and safety of testers with criminal convictions. After carefully considering public comments, HUD has finalized the rule to remove the restrictions on testers with criminal convictions. This rule is expected not only to strengthen fair housing enforcement efforts but also provide employment opportunities and promote equity and inclusion for individuals with criminal conviction The document also addresses other issues, such as the impact on small entities, federalism considerations, environmental impact, and compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It concludes with the amendments to the relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations. In summary, this document announces a final rule issued by HUD to remove restrictions on using fair housing testers with criminal convictions. The rule promotes equity, inclusion, and effective fair housing enforcement. It is based on public comments and considerations of various factors and amends the relevant regulations to reflect the changes. The final rule takes effect in May 2024.

Read full story

The Rural Development Service Announces HOTMA Implementation

A memorandum from Joaquin Altoro, the Administrator of the Rural Housing Service (RHS), addressed to Multifamily Housing Owners and Management Agents Multifamily Housing Partners, has explained how HOTMA will be implemented by the Rural Housing Service (RHS). All housing programs administered by RHS are affected, but the primary impact will be felt in the Section 515 Program.  The memorandum concerns an Administrator Exception related to implementing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA).   The memorandum explains that the Housing Act of 1949, which governs the RHS, requires the calculation of a tenant's annual and adjusted household income to be based on the definition provided by the Housing Act of 1937. As a result, RHS must determine income for housing purposes per 24 CFR 5.609, the section of the Code of Federal Regulations governing HUD housing programs.  However, HOTMA directed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue a rule changing the income calculation requirements.  HUD published a Final Rule updating 24 CFR 5.609 on February 14, 2023, effective January 1, 2024.  The memorandum states that the Housing Act of 1949 does not incorporate the updates found in 24 CFR 5.609(c), and therefore, the RHS and Multifamily Housing (MFH) will not implement 24 CFR 5.609(c).   The memorandum further explains that under the authority granted in 7 CFR 3560.8, a regulatory waiver has been approved to exclude 24 CFR 5.609(c) from Rural Development's annual income calculation requirements.  The waiver is effective retroactive to January 1, 2024.  The memorandum lists the specific requirements that RD will not implement, including interim tenant income reexaminations where adjusted income is estimated to increase or decrease by 10% or more, using other programs' income determinations, and allowing de minimis errors resulting in $30 or less per month to remain in compliance. Concerning recertifications, tenants at RD properties must be income recertified at least annually and whenever household income changes by $100 or more per month or $50 or more per month if the tenant requests such a change be made. This requirement remains in place.  The Administrator's Exception will be in effect until 7 CFR 3560.153(a) is updated to refer only to 24 CFR 5.609(a) and (b). RD will apply all HOTMA changes regarding the definition of annual income, including all revised inclusions and exclusions from income.    The memorandum also mentions that full compliance with HOTMA is mandatory, effective January 1, 2025, and RD is establishing further guidance and updating handbooks and forms to incorporate the changes.   RD encourages owners and management agents to discuss the implementation with software providers to ensure seamless data transmission.   The memorandum concludes by stating that RD will not penalize owners for HOTMA-related tenant file issues during RD Supervisory reviews conducted before January 1, 2025. 

Read full story

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for Affordable Housing Training - May 2024

During May 2024, A. J. Johnson will partner with the Mid-Atlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. The sessions will be presented via live webinars.  The following sessions will be presented: May 8: Intermediate LIHTC Compliance  - Designed for more experienced managers, supervisory personnel, investment asset managers, and compliance specialists, this practical program expands on the information covered in the Basics of Tax Credit Site Management. A more in-depth discussion of income verification issues is included, as well as a discussion of minimum set-aside issues (including the Average Income Minimum Set-Aside), optional fees, and use of common areas. The Available Unit Rule is covered in great detail, as are the requirements for units occupied by students. Attendees will also learn the requirements for setting rents at a tax-credit property. This course contains some practice problems but is more discussion-oriented than the Basic course. A calculator is required for this course. May 14: Basic LIHTC Compliance - This training is designed primarily for site managers and investment asset managers responsible for site-related asset management and is especially beneficial to those managers who are relatively inexperienced in the tax credit program. It covers all aspects of credit related to on-site management, including the applicant interview process, determining resident eligibility (income and student issues), handling recertification, setting rents - including a full review of utility allowance requirements - lease issues, and the importance of maintaining the property. The training includes problems and questions to ensure students fully comprehend the material. May 16: The Verification and Calculation of Income and Assets on Affordable Housing Properties - The live webinar provides concentrated instruction on the required methodology for calculating and verifying income and determining the value of assets and income generated by those assets. The first section of the course involves a comprehensive discussion of employment income, military pay, pensions/social security, self-employment income, and child support. It concludes with workshop problems designed to test what the student has learned during the discussion phase of the training and serve to reinforce HUD-required techniques for determining income. The second component of the training focuses on a detailed discussion of requirements related to determining asset value and income. It applies to all federal housing programs, including the low-income housing tax credit, tax-exempt bonds, Section 8, Section 515, and HOME. Multiple types of assets are covered, both in terms of what constitutes an asset and how they must be verified. This section also concludes with problems designed to test the student s understanding of the basic requirements relative to assets. These sessions are part of a year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge needed to effectively manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs, ensuring long-term success in the field. Persons interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

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.