News

IRS 2018-2019 Priority Guidance Plan

On November 8, 2018, the IRS released a Priority Guidance Plan for the period July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019.   This plan outlines the areas that the IRS intends to provide formal guidance on for the rest of 2018 and first half of 2019.   239 guidance projects are included, and the Plan will be updated as new items are added. At this point, five of the guidance items relate to affordable housing.     Regulations under Section 42 regarding the LIHTC average income test (this is guidance that the industry is especially eager to receive); Guidance regarding Opportunity Zones (OZs); Early OZ guidance has already been published: October 29, 2018 - Regulation 115420-18; and November 5, 2018 - IRB 2018-45 as Revenue Ruling 2018-29. Final regulation under Section 42 relating to compliance monitoring by the allocating agencies including issues identified in Notice 2012-18. Proposed and temporary regulations were issued on February 25, 2016. This regulation will relate to HFA property inspection requirements; Final Section 42 Utility Allowance regulation. Proposed and temporary regulations were published on March 3, 2016; and Guidance on tax-exempt private activity bonds under Section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code.   In addition to this anticipated guidance from the IRS, it is expected that Congressional action with regard to the LIHTC program will also occur in 2019 - should be a busy year.  

Environmental Issues Relating to Fair Housing

As we all know, the environment in which we live can impact our health and well-being. Bad water and bad air are known causes of health problems. What often goes unnoticed however is the environment within buildings - including homes.   One issue often overlooked by owners of older apartment communities is lead-based paint, which can have an especially harmful impact on young children. Lead-based paint is often found in homes that were built prior to 1978 (when lead-based paint in home construction was prohibited). Federal prosecutors have recently accused the New York City Housing Authority of failing to inspect for lead-based paint or to remove it or clean it up when it is found. There are other causes of indoor environmental problems, including pesticides, cleaning supplies, paint, mold, and even bed bugs.   Those most likely to be impacted by indoor environmental concerns are children, pregnant women, and the disabled. Owners cannot avoid liability by refusing to rent to high risk populations due to known hazards. For example, rejecting a pregnant woman or a family with children due to the presence of lead-based paint is a fair housing violation.   When persons with disabilities are impacted by environmental concerns, owners may have to change policies or procedures in order to accommodate the needs of the disabled individuals. Such accommodations could include changing paint, cleaning products, or pesticides. Removal of carpet and installation of air purifiers may be modifications that are required in order to alleviate environmental impact on the disabled.   Here are five recommendations that apartment owners should consider with regard to environmental concerns:   Don t exclude families with children to avoid lead-based paint exposure. Don t ignore environmental concerns. If a disabled person files a complaint regarding any environmental issue, it should be taken seriously. Owners may require medical verification regarding the need for any accommodation if the need is not obvious. The need for accommodations relative to environmental issues is generally not obvious. Evaluate requests relating to chemical sensitivity. A 1992 HUD memo recognized multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) and environmental illnesses (EI) as fair housing disabilities. Consider all disability related requests for green alternatives to conventional products. There are environmentally friendly products relating to cleaning, painting, and pest control. Take secondhand smoke complaints seriously. Secondhand smoke is a known and legally established health hazard and complaints in this area must be dealt with immediately. This is one of the major reasons so many owners are now adopting no-smoking policies at their properties.   It is important that owners be aware that failure to act with regard to environmental concerns - whether indoors or out - can be a fair housing violation. Recognition of potential problems - and proactive action regarding those problems - can go a long way toward preventing complaints down the road.

LIHTC Lease - Important Elements

Important Elements of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Leases   With the exception of having at least a six-month initial term when a household moves into a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) property, the IRS has no specific requirements regarding leases. In many ways, LIHTC leases mirror the leases for conventional apartment communities. However, the LIHTC program differs from conventional housing in many ways, so LIHTC leases should have certain clauses that reflect these differences. Following are some of the major elements that should be considered when preparing a LIHTC lease.   List every member of the household in the lease: while the lease should be signed by the head, co-head, and spouse, every person living in the unit should be listed on the lease. If a person will not be signing the lease, they should be listed as an "occupant." Unless a person age 18 or over is a full-time student, it is recommended that anyone age 18+ sign the lease. Keep in mind that everyone age 18 or older - including full-time students - should sign the Tenant Income Certification (TIC). Never show a live-in aide on a lease: Live-in aides should never appear on a lease - not even as an occupant. A recent court case in Arkansas found that since a live-in aide was not shown on the lease of a Section 8 property, the aide had no right to remain in the unit after the death of the resident. Listing the aide on the lease could make it more difficult to remove the aide in the case of the death or move-out of the resident for whom the aide was providing care. Specify which utilities the tenant will pay, and which will be paid by the landlord; Clearly separate optional charges from rent; g., pet fees should be shown as optional fees and not rent. Include a clause making it clear that residents must comply with the rules of the Section 42 program; Including a requirement to recertify and rules relating to student status, Require notification whenever there is a change in household composition Include a clause that allows the Owner (or representative) and staff of the State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) to inspect the units; At move in, make sure the initial lease term is at least six months: Failure to meet this six-month lease requirement could result in the State considering the unit to be "transient," meaning that it is not intended as a permanent residence. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and Transitional Housing for the homeless may have a month-to-month lease at move-in. There are no IRS required leases: LIHTC leases should comply with state and local law and leases of other programs present at the property (e.g., HUD Section 8). Add lease clauses that increase efficiency and cash flow: Prohibit subletting, and specify that there may be no "AIRBNB;" and Include a "rent acceleration" clause, allowing for an increase in rent prior to the end of the lease term when income limits increase, or utility allowances decrease.   Finally, the lease should be reviewed by a local attorney for compliance with state and local laws, and it is a good idea to give the HFA an opportunity to review the lease. Clauses such as those outlined here will improve the operation of a LIHTC property.    

2019 Social Security COLA

The federal government announced on October 11, 2018 that the Social Security Cost of Live Adjustment (COLA) for 2019 will be 2.8%. This is the largest cost-of-living adjustment since 2012. The average SS check is $1,422 a month, meaning next year's increase will add an average of $39 per month.   Social Security recipients will receive a notice in the mail in early December showing their new benefit amount. Recipients will see the increase in their January 2019 payment.   Owners and managers of properties that are required to determine the income of residents should use the new COLA SS rate when projecting the income of applicants and residents. This also affects persons receiving SSI, VA pensions, Civil Service Pensions and Railroad Retirement.

Difference Between SSI and SSD

I recently received an email from a client who indicated that their corporate Section 8 department refused to accept a verification of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for a person under age 65 as a verification of disability. The Section 8 department believed that since it was not Social Security Disability (SSD), the person was not necessarily disabled. The Section 8 department was incorrect.   This article will provide a description of how SSI and SSD are alike - and how they are different.   How are the Two Programs Alike?   To qualify for disability benefits under either SSI or SSD, there is no difference between the two programs. The forms are the same, the application process is the same, and the rules for qualifying are the same. In this regard, they may as well be the same program.   How are the Two Programs Different?   The primary differences have to do with the amount of money individuals can receive and the medical benefits. SSI recipients may only receive whatever is the maximum SSI monthly benefit at any particular moment. For the year 2018, the monthly maximum SSI benefit amounts are $750 for an eligible individual and $1,125 for an eligible SSI recipient with an eligible spouse.   Social Security disability on the other hand is based on what a person paid into the system over their years of working. The average SSD benefit is currently approximately $1,200 but can exceed $2,000 per month.   Regarding medical benefits, SSI recipients receive Medicaid and SSD recipients receive Medicare benefits.   SSI is a disability program intended to help individuals who are not insured for Social Security disability. Individuals who have not worked, who have worked very little (possibly entitling them to a small SSD benefit amount that is under the SSI maximum benefit amount), who have worked in the past are no longer currently insured for SSD, and children. SSI disability is based on need - not insured status.   SSI disability beneficiaries must meet income and asset limits at the time of their disability application, when their disability claim is approved, and periodically as long as they are entitled to SSI disability benefits. SSI disability is a needs based disability program and like other needs based programs, SSI beneficiaries must meet the financial requirements of SSI to remain eligible to receive disability benefits. SSD beneficiaries are not subject to any resource and income limits.   In summary, while there are significant differences between SSI and SSD, eligibility is not one of them. If a person under age 65 is receiving SSI, they are disabled.

Final GAO Report on LIHTC Program - September 18, 2018

On September 18, 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its fourth and final report on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. This report is titled "Improved Data and Oversight Would Strengthen Cost Assessment and Fraud Risk Management." The three prior reports examined IRS and State Housing Finance Agencies (HFA) performance relative to the program and the role of syndicators.   All four reports were prepared at the request of Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This final report was requested due to reports of high or fraudulent development costs for certain LIHTC projects. The GAO was asked to review the cost efficiency and effectiveness of the LIHTC program.   The report examined (1) development costs for selected LIHTC projects and factors affecting costs; (2) HFA oversight of costs; and (3) factors limiting assessment of costs.   1,849 projects built from 2011 to 2015 from 12 different HFAs were examined.   Primary GAO Recommendations   Congress should designate a federal agency to maintain and analyze LIHTC cost data; and   The IRS should enhance collection and verification of cost data.   More detail on specific recommendations is provided below.   What the GAO Found   There is a wide variation in average development costs. Ranging from $126,000 per unit in Texas to $326,000 per unit in California. The lowest cost project reviewed was a Georgia project ($104,000) and the highest was a project in Northern California ($606,000). Larger projects (100+ units) cost $85,000 less per unit than small projects (less than 37 units). [This would be consistent with expected economies of scale]. Projects in urban areas cost $13,000 more per unit than rural projects. Senior units (1/3 of all projects) cost $7,000 per unit less than family units. [The smaller size of senior units would account for this difference]. Few agencies guard against misrepresentation of contractor costs (a known fraud risk). Many agencies do not require detailed cost certification, and the IRS does not have such a requirement. There are significant inconsistencies between HFA policies; One IRS requirement (tracking of fees paid to syndicators) is not being consistently done by HFAs. There is no IRS requirement for HFAs to collect and report cost-related data.   HFAs That Took Part in the Study   Arizona Department of Housing California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Chicago Department of Planning & Development Florida Housing Finance Corporation Georgia Department of Community Affairs Illinois Housing Development Authority New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal Ohio Housing Finance Agency Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs Washington State Housing Finance Commission   These 12 agencies accounted for 50% of the total 9% credits allocated in 2015.   Other Findings   The median cost of LIHTC projects was about $204,000 per unit but vary greatly by construction type.   New Construction: $218,000 Urban: $230,000 Rural: $192,000 Rehab: $169,000 Urban: $196,000 Rural: $124,000   While some HFAs have adopted measures requiring detailed cost certifications, it is not required by the IRS that they do so.   Cost Limits   39 of the 57 HFAs set limits on project Total Development Cost (TDC) or limits on eligible basis (or both).   Cost Monitoring   No federal agency monitors and assesses LIHTC development costs. The GAO recommends that HUD be the lead agency in this effort, but Congress has taken no action in this area.   Study Conclusions   Congress has not designated an agency to evaluate program performance. For this reason, Congress lacks the information needed to properly oversee the program. The current IRS cost certification requirement is limited to aggregated developer costs and does not address the known fraud risk of including costs not actually incurred. General contractor cost certifications should be required. Better standardization of cost data collection by HFAs can offset the weakness of not having data collection by a federal agency. The IRS should provide guidance to the HFAs on how syndication expenses (including upper-tier) should be collected and reviewed.   GAO Recommendations for Executive Action   The IRS should require general contractor cost certifications for LIHTC projects to verify consistency with developer cost certifications; The IRS should encourage HFAs and other stakeholders to develop more standardized cost data; and The IRS should provide guidance on how to collect information on and review LIHTC syndication expenses, including upper-tier partnership expenses.   It is worth noting that the IRS has disagreed with all three recommendations.   The report was not critical of the LIHTC program itself, and in fact acknowledges that the LIHTC program "plays an important role in addressing the housing needs of low-income renters " What the analysis does is provide a broad perspective on development costs across a range of allocating agencies and illustrates the types of insights that would be gained from standardizing data collection on project costs and characteristics. Whether Congress will take any action based on the four GAO reports is unknown. However, as an industry, it is important that we study closely the issues identified by the GAO as program weaknesses, and work for improvement in those areas. HFAs should work to improve on the issues noted in the second GAO report (issued in June 2016) and the entire industry should be cognizant of the fraud issues that have been identified in recent years. Working to create program transparency and eliminating the "bad actors" will play a big role in keeping the program vibrant and active for years to come.

Premises Liability - When Property Owners are at Risk

One of the least understood risks that owners of multifamily properties face is the risk related to someone being injured due to a violent crime at their property. This short article is intended to provide a general overview of "premises liability" as that liability relates to security but is not legal advice. Owners should consult their own attorneys regarding specific risks associated with their property, but this brief article should give you things to think about.   The key to be liable for someone s injury at your property due to violence is whether or not a landlord could reasonably know that residents are at risk. In legal terms, the violence is "foreseeable." Whether or not a crime is foreseeable depends on many factors. Courts will examine to determine if there were signs that the landlord should have picked up on, indicating a high potential for crime. For example, if a resident is attacked in the lobby of an apartment building, the landlord is now on notice that a crime of this type is possible - and needs to take steps to prevent it in the future. But, foreseeability can occur even if no crime has occurred; I ll discuss some examples below.   The Basics of Owner Liability   Common law has established five basic principles that establish an owner s obligation to protect residents: Duty of care; Breach of the duty; Damages; Causation; and Foreseeability   Duty of Care   As a landlord, you owe residents a duty of care to maintain "reasonably" safe premises. What is reasonable depends on a number of factors, but the main element is that security must be proportionate to risk.   Breach of Duty   A breach of duty occurs when an owner fails to perform a duty that is either imposed by law or assumed voluntarily. For example, every locality requires door locks on unit entry doors. If locks are not working - and the landlord knows it - the duty of care to residents has been breached.   Damages   To be entitled to damages, a plaintiff must have suffered damage of some type - physical injuries being the most obvious. Mental anguish may also be considered damage as can lost time from work and property damage.   Causation   A court should find an owner liable only if there was a link between the crime and the breach of the owner s duty and that breach was a substantial factor in the harm to a resident. For example, a resident informed management on August 1 that her window lock was broken. Management did not repair the lock and on August 20, an intruder entered the unit through the window and sexually assaulted the resident. Management breached its duty of care and may be held liable for the attack on the resident. Keep in mind that a victim does not have to prove that it is absolutely certain that the crime would not have occurred had it not been for the broken lock; she would only have to show that, more likely than not, management s failure was a substantial contributing factor to the crime.   Foreseeability   Courts will apply a "reasonable person" standard when assessing whether a duty of care was breached. In other words, given the circumstances at the site, could a reasonable person have anticipated that commission of a crime was likely? If the answer is yes, the crime was "foreseeable." Foreseeability is the most complex area of the law relative to duty of care, and it is a concept that varies from state to state. It may depend on the judge hearing the case, the jury, and any local laws. There are two common approaches to foreseeability:   Prior Similar Crime - In these cases, a victim must show that prior crimes at the site or in the area were similar to the one that prompted the lawsuit. For example, prior assaults in an apartment community s parking lot would create a foreseeable crime. Totality of Circumstances - Here courts may consider evidence of prior dissimilar crimes, especially those that occurred near the apartment community. This approach will consider: Prior crime at the site - this could include not only violent crime but also crimes such as theft, vandalism, and burglary. There is often a relationship between property crimes and a higher risk of violent crime. Prior crime elsewhere at the site - if a crime occurs at another part of the same site, many courts will consider the crime to be foreseeable. Crime in the immediate vicinity of the site - the presence of drug dealers or gangs in or near the site may put management on notice that crimes against residents are foreseeable Prior crime in the neighborhood - courts may hold that a crime at your property was foreseeable if there had been occurrences in the surrounding neighborhood. However, crimes committed in the neighborhood are generally not enough to demonstrate foreseeability. The crime rate in the neighborhood would have to be substantial enough that a reasonable person would know that crime at your site is likely or highly possible. Crime in similar business establishments - businesses of certain types are more likely to have crimes in particular categories. For example, disorderly conduct and assaults often occur in bars and nightclubs; car thefts happen in parking lots; and robberies often take place in convenience stores. Apartment communities, which are impacted primarily by burglary, robbery, rape, and assault and battery are on notice that these crimes are foreseeable. Prior complaints - complaints by residents about unsafe conditions (e.g., gangs or drug dealers) may put you at notice that your property is at risk for crimes against your residents. Knowledge of crime and acknowledgement of risk - "acknowledgement" requires evidence that the defendant was aware of problems at the site. If the victim can show that the defendant took no action to eliminate the risk it had acknowledged, the case may well be decided in favor of the plaintiff.   It is important that property owners understand the basics of premises liability and discuss methods for reducing such liability with insurance agents and local police officials.

HUD Lodges Fair Housing Complaint Against Facebook

On August 17, 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) announced a formal complaint against Facebook for violating the Fair Housing Act by allowing landlords and sellers to use its advertising platform to engage in housing discrimination.   HUD claims Facebook enables advertisers to control which users receive housing-related ads based on the recipients race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, and/or zip code. Facebook then invites advertisers to express unlawful preferences by offering discriminatory options, effectively limiting housing options for these protected classes under the guise of targeted advertising.   The complaint provides the following examples of how Facebook is permitting the discriminatory actions:   Facebook enables advertisers to discriminate based on sex by showing ads only to men or only to women; Facebook enables advertisers to discriminate based on disability by not showing ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility," or "deaf culture;" Facebook enables advertisers to discriminate based on familial status by not showing ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or by showing ads only to users with children above a certain age; Facebook enables advertisers to discriminate based on religion by showing ads only to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in the "Christian Church," "Jesus," "Christ," or the "Bible;" Facebook enables advertisers to discriminate based on national origin by not showing ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," "Somalia," the "Hispanic National Bar Association" or "Mundo Hispanico;" and Facebook enables advertisers to discriminate based on race and color drawing a red line around majority-minority zip codes and now showing ads to users who live in those zip codes.   Facebook markets its ad targeting platform as a useful tool for providers of housing-related services. For example, Facebook promotes its ad targeting platform with "success stories" for finding "the perfect homeowners," "reaching home buyers," "attracting renters," and "personalizing property ads."   Industry professionals have expected this action for some time since there have been numerous complaints about Facebooks ads by fair housing proponents. To say the least, it will be interesting to see how Facebook responds. It is likely that their defense will be that they are a "platform" and not a publisher, which is the defense they have used recently relative to the Russian election activities. How that argument stands up we ll just have to wait and see.

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.