AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

Reminder of Federal Disaster Rules Relating to Section 42

person A.J. Johnson today 09/30/2017

With all the natural disasters that have occurred recently (Harvey, Irma, Maria), it is worthwhile to review IRS guidance relative to Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties located in affected areas.   Disaster Relief Rules   Revenue Procedure 2014-49   This IRS Revenue Procedure provides temporary relief from certain requirements of §42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the LIHTC Program) for Agencies and owners if certain areas have been impacted by a major disaster. It also provides emergency housing relief for individuals who are displaced by a Major Disaster from their principal residences in certain Major Disaster Areas.   This procedure made some substantive changes to Revenue Procedure 2007-54, which was the major IRS guidance relative to tax credit properties and disaster areas prior to 2014-49. Key changes are (1) changes the reasonable restoration period for recapture relief and the tolling period for severely damaged, destroyed, or uninhabitable buildings in the first year of the credit period; (2) in determining qualified basis, uses the building’s qualified basis at the end of the taxable year immediately preceding the first day of the incident period as determined by FEMA, rather than at the end of the taxable year preceding the President’s Major Disaster declaration; (3) incorporates a temporary suspension of certain income limitations for Displaced individuals; (4) eliminates the need for self-certification of income eligibility; (5) permits an Agency to allow an owner within its jurisdiction to provide emergency housing relief to Displaced Individuals from other jurisdictions; (6) describes the consequences of providing emergency housing relief in the first year of the credit period and after the first year of the credit period; and (7) modifies the safe harbor relating to the amount of credit allowable to a restored building to provide relief in circumstances where the restoration cost is less than the eligible basis cost.   The procedure applies when the President has declared a Major Disaster. It applies to Displaced Individuals and to all §42 buildings, including those financed by Tax-Exempt Bonds. It also applies to all Agencies and owners both inside and outside States containing a Major Disaster Area.   Relief for Carryover Allocations   If an owner has a carryover allocation of credits for a building in a Major Disaster Area and the incident period for the Major Disaster began prior to the deadline for placing the building in service, the Agency may grant the owner an extension. If the Agency grants an extension (details of this process are explained below), the IRS will treat the owner as having satisfied the 10 percent of basis requirement of §42(h)(1)(E)(ii) if the owner meets the 10 percent requirement no later than the expiration of the Agency extension.   If the Major Disaster occurs on or after the date of the carryover allocation, the Agency may grant the owner an extension relative to the placed in service date for the building. In this case, the IRS will treat the owner as having satisfied the placed in service requirement of §42 if the owner places the building in service no later than the expiration of the extension.   If either the 10 percent requirement or placed in service requirement is not met by the end of the extension period, the credit will be returned to the Agency.   Procedure to Obtain Carryover Allocation Relief   Owners may not receive relief from Carryover Allocation rules unless the Agency that provided the allocation grants the relief.   Agencies may make the determination on an individual Project basis or determine that all owners or a particular group of owners in the Major Disaster Area need the relief provided by the revenue procedure. The extension may not be for more than six months after the date the owner would otherwise be required to meet the 10% of total development cost requirement. The extension may not extend beyond December 31 of the year following the end of the two-year period for placing a project in service, but can be for a shorter time period.   Recapture Relief   Generally, if, after the first year of the credit period, a building’s qualified basis is less than the qualified basis at the end of the prior tax year, credits for the applicable tax year will be reduced and recapture will result for prior tax years.   If a building’s qualified basis is reduced due to a casualty loss, a building is not subject to recapture if restored within a reasonable period of time. The HFA will determine what is reasonable in the case of a Major Disaster, but the extension may not extend beyond the end of the 25th month following the close of the month of the Major Disaster declaration. For example, if a major disaster is declared in September 2017, the deadline for restoration of qualified basis may extend no longer than October 2019.   In these cases, the qualified basis of the building allowable during the restoration period will be the building’s qualified basis at the end of the taxable year immediately preceding the first day of the incident period for the Major Disaster.   If the building is not restored within the reasonable restoration period determined by the HFA, the credit amount allowable will be based on the building’s qualified basis at the end of each year of the credit period. The HFA must report the failure to restore on IRS Form 8823.     Compliance Monitoring Relief   Agencies may extend the compliance monitoring due date for up to one year after a building has been restored and placed back in service. E.g., HFA compliance monitoring due in 2017, but building is down due to a disaster in a federally declared disaster area. Building is restored and placed back in service back in service May 1, 2018. State review will be due no later than May 1, 2019. However, if the State discovers that the building is out of compliance due to a Major Disaster, the Agency must report the noncompliance on Form 8823 and describe how the disaster contributed to the noncompliance.     Buildings in the First Year of the Credit Period   If a building is severely damaged or destroyed in a Major Disaster Area during the first year of the credit period, Agencies have the discretion to either (1) treat the allocation as a returned credit to the Agency, or (2) toll the beginning of the first year of the credit period. The tolling period shall not extend beyond the end of the 25th month following the close of the month of the Major Disaster declaration. Owners may not claim any credit during the restoration period. Agencies will report this relief as part of the 8610 process.   Amount of Credit Allowable to a Restored Building   Owners will receive no additional credits for the costs associated with restoring a building’s qualified basis. If money is spent on rehab and not on restoration, additional credits may be awarded.   Emergency Housing Relief   LIHTC projects may be used to house individuals displaced due to a Disaster Area declaration, but only with State Agency approval. This approval must specify the date on which the Temporary Housing Period for the Project ends. This period cannot exceed 12 months from the end of the month in which the President declared the Major Disaster.  
  • Protection of Existing Tenants:
    • No existing tenant whose income is, or is treated as, at or below the §42 income limit may have occupancy terminated solely to provide emergency housing for a Displaced Individual.
  • Rent Restrictions:
    • Gross rents for low-income units that house displaced individuals may not exceed the maximum gross rent that would apply under §42.
  Implementation of Emergency Housing Relief   The IRS Revenue Procedure authorizes, but does not require, provision of emergency housing relief to displaced persons. Owners are not required to provide such relief, nor are agencies required to permit it. If an owner chooses to provide relief, such relief may be provided for less than the full Temporary Housing Period. If a displaced individual qualifies as low-income under §42, the owner may rent to the individual as a low-income resident or provide temporary housing relief based on the guidance of the Revenue Procedure. Units occupied by displaced individuals will not be considered "transient" units for purposes of §42. Occupancy by displaced individuals may be disregarded for purposes of the available unit rule. However, the rule still applies to buildings where residents qualified under §42 exceed 140% of the applicable income limit. If a project is in the first year of the credit period and a unit is occupied by a displaced individual, the units is treated as low-income for (1) determination of qualified basis; and (2) meeting the elected minimum set-aside test.   Treatment of Units After the First Year of the Credit Period   If a Displaced Individual begins occupancy of a unit during the Temporary Housing Period, but after the first year of the credit period, the unit will retain the status it had immediately before that occupancy. Therefore, if the unit is a low-income unit, a market-rate unit, or a unit never previously occupied, it retains that status while occupied by a displaced individual, regardless of the income of the displaced individual.   Treatment of a Unit Vacated by a Displaced Individual   If a displaced individual vacates a unit before the end of the Temporary Housing Period, the unit retains the status it had prior to occupancy by the displaced individual, even if the next tenant does not occupy the unit until after the end of the Temporary Housing Period. Income Qualifications when Temporary Housing Period Ends   If a displaced person continues to occupy a unit in a project at the end of the temporary housing period, the status of the unit will be re-evaluated as though the individual moved into the project on the day immediately following the end of the temporary housing period. In other words, if the displaced person is not a qualified low-income tenant, the unit will be considered a market unit on the day after the end of the temporary housing period. If a project falls below the required minimum set-aside as a result of this determination, a 60-day period is allowed for correction.   Emergency Housing Relief - Recordkeeping   For each displaced individual, the following information must be kept in a statement signed by the displaced individual under penalty of perjury:
  1. The name of the displaced individual;
  2. The address of the principal residence at the time of the major disaster of the displaced individual;
  3. The displaced individual’s social security number; and
  4. A statement that he or she was displaced from his or her principal residence as a result of a major disaster and that his or her principal residence was located in a city, county or other local jurisdiction that is covered by the President’s declaration of a major disaster and that is designated as eligible for Individual Assistance by FEMA due to the major disaster.
  The owner must maintain a record of the Agency’s approval of the Project’s use for displaced individuals and of the approved Temporary Housing Period. The owner must report to the Agency at the end of the Temporary Housing Period a list of the names of the displaced individuals and the dates those individuals began occupancy. The owner must also provide the dates the individuals ceased occupancy and, if applicable, the date each unit occupied by a displaced individual became occupied by a subsequent tenant.        

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.