AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

IRS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Average Income Test

person A.J. Johnson today 11/01/2020

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 80% 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 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

Understanding Tariffs and Their Impact on Construction Costs

What Are Tariffs? A tariff is simply a tax imposed on imported goods. When products like building materials enter U.S. ports, paying the applicable tariff is a standard part of the customs process. Historical Context Tariffs have deep roots in American history. From the colonial era through the early 1900s, they served as the federal government s primary revenue source. They were relatively straightforward to enforce even before modern technology, as customs officers could inspect incoming shipments at ports and collect the appropriate fees. The federal government s limited taxing authority under the Constitution meant that a modern income tax was not legally permissible until the 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913. The Decline of Tariffs Despite their historical importance, tariffs have several inherent problems that led to their declining use over the past century: They disadvantaged U.S. agricultural interests and exporters as other countries implemented retaliatory trade barriers. The tax burden fell disproportionately on lower-income individuals who spend more of their income on basic necessities. They couldn t generate sufficient revenue to fund modern government operations. When the global economy faltered in 1930, many nations, including the U.S., implemented protective tariffs with the Smoot-Hawley Act. Most economists view this wave of protectionism as a contributing factor to the severity of the Great Depression. Learning from this experience, the U.S. and other advanced economies gradually reduced trade barriers during the postwar period to foster economic cooperation and peace. Current Tariff Landscape Even during periods of free trade enthusiasm, tariffs never disappeared entirely. They remained relatively low in recent years, dropping to 1.5% in 2017 after decades of bipartisan efforts to establish global trade agreements. The Trump administration increased rates to approximately 3% during his previous term, which President Biden largely maintained. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the Trump administration s announced policies would raise the average tariff to 22.5% higher than during the Smoot-Hawley era and roughly equivalent to 1909 levels. Implementation Authority The scale of newly announced tariffs is significantly larger than previous ones. They affect nearly all goods from every country worldwide and invoke emergency authority not previously used for this purpose. Tariffs Impact on Construction Costs Tariffs increase construction costs through several key mechanisms: Direct price increases on imported construction materials like steel, aluminum, lumber, and other building products. These higher costs are typically passed along to developers and ultimately to end consumers. The specific impact depends on several factors: Which materials are targeted The tariff rate percentages Availability of domestic alternatives Proportion of imported versus domestic materials used The recent tariffs on imports from China (20%), Mexico, and Canada (25%) have significant implications for construction. According to the National Association of Home Builders, these tariffs could increase builder costs by approximately $7,500 to $10,000 per home for residential construction. This impact is substantial because approximately 7% of all goods used in new residential construction are imported. Critical materials like softwood lumber come predominantly from Canada (72% of imports), while gypsum for drywall is mainly sourced from Mexico (74% of imports). Multifamily Construction Impact For multifamily construction specifically, with 46% of materials sourced from these countries and 35-50% of project costs tied to finished materials, tariffs could increase material costs by 7.5%, potentially raising total construction budgets by 3-4%. Broader Effects Beyond core construction materials, reciprocal tariffs may also influence other building-related imports, such as carpeting, electrical outlets, security equipment, furniture, and tools. Projects that have already been awarded but are not yet started are likely to experience the most significant impact. Industry forecasts suggest the construction industry will feel the brunt of tariff policy changes in late 2025 and early 2026. Meanwhile, due to tariff-related inflation concerns, the Federal Reserve is expected to maintain stable interest rates through most of 2025. Recent Developments Homebuilders have been relieved, as Canada and Mexico were exempted from the latest round of tariffs, protecting key lumber and drywall component imports. Additionally, a carveout exists for lumber and copper imports. These tariff developments are challenging the U.S. housing market, which is already struggling with supply constraints and affordability issues. Developers with affordable multifamily housing projects in the pipeline or underway but for which materials have not yet been purchased should prepare for these possible increases. Developers facing this uncertainty should take a proactive, strategic approach. Here are some of the steps they should consider: 1. Lock in Pricing Where Possible Negotiate Early Procurement Contracts: Secure pricing and delivery timelines now for materials that may be subject to tariffs. Bulk Purchasing: If financially feasible and storage is available, purchase critical materials before the tariff is implemented. 2. Revisit and Update Budgets Include Contingency Allowances: Adjust budgets to account for a potential spike in material costs (e.g., steel, aluminum, electrical components). Run Revised Pro Formas: Model project feasibility under different tariff scenarios to understand the margin of financial risk. 3. Communicate with Key Stakeholders Inform Lenders and Syndicators: Ensure your financial partners know potential cost escalations and any resulting impact on project viability or timelines. Coordinate with HFAs and Local Agencies: If the deal includes LIHTCs or public funding, discuss possible adjustments or relief options (e.g., basis boosts, revised gap financing). 4. Evaluate Alternative Materials and Suppliers Source Domestic Alternatives: Tariffs often target imported materials. Switching to local or tariff-exempt sources could mitigate cost hikes. Value Engineering: Reassess design specs to identify non-critical elements where substitutions could reduce costs. 5. Monitor Policy and Industry Updates Stay Informed: Watch for updates on tariff decisions and industry responses through trade associations (e.g., NAHB, NMHC). Engage in Advocacy: Support efforts to exempt affordable housing materials from tariffs or seek policy carve-outs. 6. Build Schedule Flexibility Buffer Time for Delays: Tariffs often disrupt supply chains, so build in extra time for procurement and delivery to avoid construction slowdowns. 7. Document Impacts Track Cost Changes: Keep records showing cost increases due to tariffs this can be useful when requesting additional funding or extensions from oversight bodies. Being proactive can help developers manage risk rather than be blindsided by rising costs. In this environment, a smart developer remains nimble, communicates clearly, and plans for the worst while hoping for the best.

Read full story

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for Training on Affordable Housing - May 2025

In May 2025, A. J. Johnson will partner with the MidAtlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for four live webinar training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. The following sessions will be presented: May 20: Acquisition/Rehab, Tenant Selection Plans & Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans The complexities of affordable housing development don t stop at financing. When acquisition, rehabilitation, and layered funding programs collide, the stakes increase. Join industry expert A. J. Johnson for a practical and timely webinar on compliance pitfalls and planning strategies that can make or break your LIHTC project. This fast-paced session will break down the following: Acquisition-Rehab LIHTC Projects: How IRS rules impact "placed in service dates, acquisition credits, and meeting the 120-day qualification rule. The Available Unit Rule (AUR): Why this often-overlooked rule can lead to credit loss even on properties that no longer recertify. Tenant Selection Plans (TSPs): What every property manager must know about layered program requirements, lottery procedures, and legal screening standards. Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs): How to structure your outreach to comply with HUD requirements and avoid costly fair housing violations. Whether you're a developer, property manager, or compliance officer, this training will give you actionable strategies to keep your project on track and in full regulatory compliance. Who Should Attend - LIHTC developers, compliance specialists, property managers, syndicators, and housing agency staff responsible for acquisition, rehabilitation, and oversight of layered programs. May 21: HOTMA - Update on HUD Requirements On January 9, 2023, HUD published a final rule implementing The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA), signed into law on July 29, 2016. This final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2023, and has yet to become effective for HUD programs. Virtually all HUD programs are impacted by the rule, as are the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program and the Rural Development Section 515 Program. Since publishing the final rule in February 2023, HUD has provided additional guidance in implementing the rule, including extensions regarding implementation. This three-hour training will explain any updated HUD guidance and will cover the following areas: Definitional changes relating to earned and unearned income, non-recurring income, and foster children; Revised Income Exclusions; New requirements relative to Student Financial Assistance; Changes to the HUD permitted deductions from gross income, including a full review of the new "hardship exemptions; Brand new rules regarding assets; New Interim Recertification requirements; and The new definition of "annual income. May 22: Basic LIHTC Compliance This training is designed primarily for site and investment asset managers responsible for site-related asset management. It 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 28: Dealing with Income and Assets in Affordable Multifamily Housing - Course Overview This 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 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 and are designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge needed to manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs effectively. Individuals or organizations interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

Read full story

Crime-Free Ordinances: When Local Laws Conflict with Federal Fair Housing Protections

In August 2024, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice issued a critical warning: municipal "crime-free rental housing and "nuisance property ordinances may violate federal fair housing laws. These ordinances effective in nearly 2,000 cities across 48 states until recently place landlords in a precarious position. While intended to reduce crime and maintain neighborhood stability, these measures often result in unintended discrimination and can expose landlords to significant legal liability. Notable Legal Cases Several landmark cases have established important precedents regarding crime-free ordinances: United States v. City of Hesperia (2023) In a groundbreaking case, the Justice Department secured a landmark agreement with the City of Hesperia, California, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff s Department to resolve racial and national origin discrimination allegations in their "crime-free rental housing program. The consent order required the city to completely repeal its crime-free program and ordinance marking the first resolution demanding the complete end of such a program. The settlement included a $950,000 payout, with $670,000 allocated to compensate individuals harmed by the program. The Justice Department alleged that the city and sheriff s department engaged in a pattern of discrimination against Black and Latinx individuals in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the enforcement of their crime-free rental housing program. Briggs v. Norristown After experiencing the harmful impacts of a nuisance ordinance, Ms. Briggs, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit against the City of Norristown. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) filed a complaint stating that the ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act based on its impact on women experiencing domestic violence. The case resulted in a settlement requiring Norristown to repeal its ordinances, and subsequently, Pennsylvania passed legislation banning localities from creating these types of ordinances. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015) In this influential Supreme Court case, the Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. This crucial decision established that housing policies with discriminatory effects even without discriminatory intent could violate the FHA. The ruling is particularly relevant to crime-free ordinances, which often produce disparate impacts on protected classes. The Legal Conflict: Federal Protections vs. Local Ordinances Landlords face a troubling dilemma: follow local crime-free ordinances and risk violating federal law, or disregard local requirements and face municipal penalties. This conflict stems from the fact that these ordinances may violate four major federal laws: 1. The Fair Housing Act Crime-free ordinances often have a disproportionate impact on protected classes. For example: When these ordinances require eviction based on arrests rather than convictions, they disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic tenants, who statistically face higher rates of police interaction regardless of criminal activity. Blanket policies requiring eviction of an entire household due to one member s criminal activity can discriminate against families with children, female-headed households, and certain cultural groups where extended family living arrangements are common. 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal funds. When municipalities with crime-free ordinances receive federal housing funds, they may violate Title VI if: Their ordinances have disparate impacts on protected classes Implementation decisions are influenced by discriminatory intent or stereotypes about certain neighborhoods or demographic groups 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Crime-free ordinances may discriminate against individuals with disabilities in several ways: Automatic eviction for behavior related to mental health conditions without consideration of reasonable accommodations Policies that penalize multiple emergency service calls, which may disproportionately impact those with chronic health conditions requiring frequent medical assistance Exclusions of individuals with past substance use disorder convictions, despite recovery and treatment 4. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) VAWA specifically protects victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from housing discrimination. Crime-free ordinances often violate these protections by: Requiring eviction when police are called to a property multiple times, discouraging victims from seeking help Failing to distinguish between perpetrators and victims when criminal activity occurs Treating domestic disturbances as "nuisances rather than recognizing them as situations where victims need protection Problematic Practices in Crime-Free Ordinances Collective Punishment: Holding Entire Households Accountable One of the most troubling aspects of many crime-free ordinances is the requirement to evict entire households based on one individual s actions. This approach: Punishes innocent family members who had no knowledge of or participation in criminal activity Creates homelessness risks for vulnerable household members, including children, elderly relatives, and individuals with disabilities Disproportionately impacts communities where multi-generational or extended family living arrangements are cultural norms. Blanket Exclusions Based on Criminal Records Many ordinances include overly broad exclusions for individuals with criminal records: Lifetime bans for certain offenses, regardless of rehabilitation or time elapsed Failure to consider the nature, severity, or relevance of the criminal conduct to tenant suitability No individualized assessment of actual risk to property or other tenants Exclusion Based on Arrests Rather Than Convictions Some ordinances allow or require action against tenants based merely on arrests: Violates the presumption of innocence It has a disparate impact on communities of color, which experience higher rates of arrests that do not lead to convictions Creates housing instability based on unproven allegations rather than established facts Automatic Exclusion for Any Criminal Conviction Overly broad policies that automatically deny housing based on any criminal history: Fail to distinguish between violent crimes and minor offenses Ignore evidence of rehabilitation and the age of convictions Create permanent barriers to housing for individuals who have served their sentences and are working to reintegrate into society. Penalizing Emergency Service Calls Particularly problematic are provisions that treat emergency calls as "nuisances : Discourages tenants from seeking emergency medical assistance Forces vulnerable individuals to choose between needed help and keeping their housing Creates dangerous situations where tenants delay calling for assistance during genuine emergencies. Punishing Victims of Domestic Violence Perhaps most concerning is how these ordinances often penalize victims: Treating domestic violence incidents as "nuisance activities requiring eviction Failing to distinguish between calls made by victims versus perpetrators Creating a situation where victims must choose between enduring abuse in silence or risking homelessness. Legal Protections and Ongoing Developments The legal landscape around crime-free ordinances continues to evolve. In states like Illinois, legislation has been enacted to protect survivors of domestic or sexual violence and individuals with disabilities from being penalized due to calls to police for assistance. The Illinois Department of Human Rights and the UIC Law School Fair Housing Legal Support Center and Clinic have developed a guidebook addressing the fair housing implications of nuisance and crime-free ordinances. In 2024, additional cases have further clarified the legal boundaries of these ordinances: A case against a municipality alleged violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Act for enforcing crime-free housing ordinances that denied tenants with mental health disabilities equal access to emergency response services. The consent decree required the municipality to revise its program rules and enforcement practices and adopt non-discrimination policies. The Department of Justice has increased enforcement actions against localities with discriminatory housing policies, particularly those that disproportionately affect racial minorities, women, and people with disabilities. Recommendations for Landlords If your municipality has implemented a crime-free ordinance that may conflict with federal protections, consider the following steps: 1. Review your lease agreements and policies to identify provisions that may violate federal law, even if required by local ordinance. 2. Consult with a housing attorney familiar with fair housing law and local regulations to understand your specific obligations and risks. 3. Implement individualized assessments rather than blanket policies when evaluating potential tenants with criminal histories. 4. Document all housing decisions with clear, non-discriminatory business justifications. 5. Create explicit exceptions in your policies for domestic violence victims and emergency service calls. 6. Engage with local government by attending city council meetings and advocating for amendments to problematic ordinances. 7. Join or form landlord associations to collectively address concerns with local officials. 8. If necessary, consider seeking a declaratory judgment in court to resolve the conflict between federal and local requirements. 9. Stay informed about new legal developments in this rapidly evolving area of law. Navigating this legal minefield is challenging; however, landlords should prioritize compliance with federal civil rights laws. When local ordinances and federal protections conflict, federal law generally prevails. By taking proactive steps to ensure fair housing practices, landlords can protect themselves from liability while also supporting safe, stable housing for all community members.

Read full story

HUD Publishes 2025 Income Limits

On April 1, 2025, HUD published the 2025 income limits for HUD programs and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond programs. The limits are effective on April 1, 2025. The limits for the LIHTC and Bond projects are published separately from those for HUD programs. For better understanding, LIHTC and Bond properties operate under the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project (MTSP) limits. These properties are 'held harmless' from income limit (and therefore rent) reductions. This means that these properties may use the highest income limits for resident qualification and rent calculation since the project has been in service. However, it's important to note that HUD program income limits are not 'held harmless '. HUD publishes the 50% and 60% MTSP limits alongside the Average Income (AI) limits, which are set at 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. Projects that began service before 2009 may utilize the HERA Special Income Limits in areas where HUD has published such limits. Projects placed in service after 2008 cannot use the HERA Special Limits. Projects in rural areas not financed by tax-exempt bonds can use the higher MTSP limits or the National Non-Metropolitan Income Limits (NNMIL). It is important to note that for 2025, HUD has made changes to the definitions of geographic areas as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The counties or towns within certain metropolitan areas may have changed. Owners and managers should consult the HUD Area Definition Report for a list of their areas and their components. The link to the Area Definition Report can be found on the website provided below. Owners of LIHTC projects may rely on the 2024 income limits for all purposes for 45 days after the effective date of the newly issued limits, which ends on May 16, 2025. The limits for HUD programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html. The limits for LIHTC and Bond programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/mtsp.html.

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.