News

HUD Final Rule on Streamlining the Portability of the Voucher Program, August 20, 2015

On August 20, 2015, HUD published a Final Rule in the Federal Register titled, "Housing Choice Voucher Program: Streamlining the Portability Process." This final rule amends HUD s regulations governing portability in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. Portability is a feature of the HCV program that allows an eligible family with a HCV to use that voucher to lease a unit anywhere in the United States where there is a Public Housing Agency (PHA) operating an HCV program.   The rule takes effect on September 21, 2015.   While portability offers an effective mechanism to increase housing choice, the current process has been time consuming and burdensome. For this reason, both PHAs and participating families have not maximized the potential of the program.   Key regulatory changes implemented by this rule include: Removing the mandatory absorption requirement outlined in the proposed rule and clarifying the notification requirements for mandatory voucher suspension; Requires an initial PHA to notify the local HUD office within ten business days of a determination to deny a portability move based on insufficient funding; Provides that the voucher issued by the receiving PHA to the family may not expire before 30 calendar days has passed from the expiration date of the initial PHA s voucher; Requires briefings for all participants on how portability works and the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts; and Allows a family to choose the receiving PHA to administer their voucher should they choose to use portability.   Costs and Benefits   Changes to the rule are designed to increase the ability of participating families to live in areas of their choice in order to improve employment opportunities, gain access to better schools, and live in better environments. The rule also contributes to helping victims of domestic violence, by enabling them to move to a safe, stable home away from the abuser.   From a public policy standpoint, this new rule makes it easier for voucher holders to choose the area they want to live in, opening up new opportunities for owners of rental housing. This is especially important for owners of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties, since these properties cannot - by law - refuse to accept voucher holders simply on the basis of their having the voucher. Improving the portability of the vouchers will increase the supply of potential voucher holders, which in turn will provide a broader spectrum of voucher applicants. This will enhance the ability of owners to adequately screen voucher holders based on applicable selection criteria (i.e., credit, criminal screening, etc.).

Section 42 Audit Guide- Techniques Used During Audit

Audit Guide Chapter 3- Techniques Used During Audit   The IRS audit process includes the accumulation of evidence for evaluating the accuracy of a taxpayer s tax return. Evidence includes taxpayer testimony, books and records, examiner observations, and third party documents.   Interviews with the taxpayer (normally the GP) will be an integral part of the audit. The purpose of this interview will be to obtain an understanding of the taxpayer s background, financial history, business operations and internal controls, and books and records. Issues that will be discussed include: The people and entities responsible for the planning and construction phases of the project, including any related parties; The services provided by the developer, the terms of the development contract, and details relating to the developer fee; How the project was acquired - Was it undeveloped land or land with existing buildings and improvements? How were costs allocated between the land and improvements; All sources of funding for the project; Terms and requirements of the Extended Use Agreement; and How the final cost certification was prepared.   The business practices of the taxpayer will be reviewed, including how the project is managed and who is responsible for day-to-day operations. The taxpayer will be asked to explain how they are involved in the on-going operation of the project, how often the project is physically inspected, and whether the financial records are reviewed. If the property is fee managed, how often does the owner receive updates, reports or financial summaries for the project? Does the owner have written policies and procedures for the operation of the property? Are there periodic reviews by independent third parties?   Internal controls will by fully reviewed, including whether or not there is separation of duties of on-site personnel. Are checks and balances in place to determine that all income is properly accounted for once the rents are received.   Examiners will tour the project to ensure the housing actually exists, includes the assets described in the records, and is suitable for occupancy. While on site, the examiner will also determine compliance with 42 requirements and test internal controls. How does the owner ensure that new tenants are income qualified at move-in? Are site employees trained? Does the owner review tenant files, and who prepares the files? How are they maintained? Where are they stored?   How is the rent determined? Who determines the maximum permitted rent? The Service will also examine to ensure that utility allowances were property determined and updated. There will be an examination of fees charged to residents to ensure that they meet the requirements of the IRS.   If prior 8823s were issued against the property, the owner will be expected to explain the circumstances of the noncompliance and subsequent correction. They will also be asked to explain how the noncompliance was accounted for when claiming credits.   Third party contacts will be made if the taxpayer cannot provide information, or if information needs to be validated. These contacts will include management personnel (current and past) as well as tenants and other third parties.   Physical Characteristics That will be Reviewed   IRS agents will observe the following physical characteristics of the property when conducting the review: Signage and advertising: they will look for indications that affordable units are available; Site: especially for new properties, agents will look at grading, clearing, grubbing, cutting, filling and rough grading to see if the scope of work is related to costs claimed; Buildings & Assets: are there garages, picnic areas, gazebos, laundry rooms, community rooms, etc. These could be classified as common areas or facilities necessary for the operation of the project; Additional Income Producing Activities: e.g., rental of the roof for commercial advertising or as a radio tower; On-Site Management or Security: how many rental units are used for such purposes; Physical Maintenance: this will be a particular issue if the property has been cited by the state for UPCS violations; Landscaping: is it well maintained? Could it be part of eligible basis? Educational Institutions: is the project located near a school? Student occupancy will be closely examined if the property is located in close proximity to a post-high school educational institution; Duplication or Diversion of Costs: if the general partner owns multiple projects, is construction similar? If so, could costs have been duplicated and claimed more than once in order to increase eligible basis? Building Interiors: agents will look for additional common areas, but will not usually ask to tour occupied apartments.   Income Qualifying New Tenants   Agents will determine how new residents are income qualified. Do applicants complete applications? Is there an application fee? If so, are all applicants charged a fee? How are income limits determined? How is applicant information verified? Random files will be selected for reviewed for documentation and organization.   Mixed-Income Projects   If the property contains both low-income and market units, the examination will include: Inspection and analysis of any structural differences between the unit types. If there are disproportionate standards, this will be examined to ensure that eligible basis was properly determined. Available Unit procedures will be analyzed.   Third Party Contacts   The IRS will contact third parties that may be able to assist in the audit. These may include: State Agencies; Former site managers and employees; and Former tenants    

The IRS Section 42 Audit Guide: How Tax Returns for LIHTC Properties are Analyzed for Audit Potential

How Tax Returns for LIHTC Properties are Analyzed for Audit Potential   The IRS 42 Audit Guide provides guidance for analyzing tax returns before contacting taxpayers to determine the specific tax credit issues that should be audited. Prior to any actual audit, the IRS will examine 8609s, any 8823s that have been issued against the property, annual 8609-As, partnership balance sheets, K-1s, and prior and subsequent year tax returns.   Review of 8609s When reviewing the 8609s, the IRS will examine the following issues: *Amount of credit allocated, to ensure that no more than this amount was claimed in any one year; *Eligible Basis and Qualified Basis. They will also review the amount of qualified basis allowed by the State Agency in order to determine the maximum annual tax credit. The service will confirm that the amount of eligible basis shown on the 8609-As (Annual Statement for Low-Income Housing Credit), matches the eligible basis shown on Part II of the 8609. This is particularly important, since it indicates that the IRS will permit "excess basis" to be used in the calculation of annual credits. *Type of Allocation: the 8609 should clearly indicate whether the building is new construction, an existing building, or an existing building that has been rehabilitated (in which case each building will have two 8609s), and whether federal subsidies were used to build or rehabilitate the building. *Tax-Exempt Bonds: The IRS will confirm that if tax-exempt bonds were used in financing the building, the credits are limited to the 30% (also known as the 4%) credits. *Nonprofit Set-Aside: if the credits were issued from the nonprofit set-aside, the nonprofit entity must (1) own an interest in the property, and (2) materially participate in both the development and operation of the project throughout the 15-year compliance period. *Credit Period - BINs, Dates, and Elections: the IRS will examine each 8609 to determine the credit period for the building/project. This will require a review of Line 5 (placed in service date), Line 10a, the first year of the credit period, Line 8b, the multiple building project election, and Line 10c, the minimum set-aside election. *Form 8823, Low-Income Housing Credit Agencies Report of Noncompliance or Building Disposition: any 8823s that have been issued against the property will be reviewed to identify issues that should be addressed during an audit. The findings reported by the state agency on an 8823 are considered to be correct unless otherwise proven to be incorrect. While the IRS may use the information on an 8823 to make adjustments to the credit, they will not project the state agency s sample results to the entire population of low-income units. In other words, if the state reviews 20 units out of 100 (20%) and finds all ten to be out of compliance, the IRS will only adjust the credit for the ten units; they will not assume that all 100 units are out of compliance. *Form 8609-A, Annual Statement for Low-Income Housing Credit: the owner of a LIHTC project files this form each year to compute the annual credit for the year. The form cannot be completed unless the state agency has issued an 8609; The IRS will examine the form to ensure Eligible basis on the 8609, Line 7 and 8609-A are the same; The credit percentage on the 8609-A and 8609, Line 2, match; and 8609-A, Line 15 does not exceed the maximum permitted annual credit as shown on the 8609, Line 1b. *Land Values: The IRS will examine the value of the land as shown on the project s balance sheet. The value should be reasonable and comparable to land record valuations. Extremely low values will raise a red flag since the cost of land is not includable in eligible basis and owners naturally want to maximize eligible basis. Other items the IRS will review prior to the actual audit include: Accounts receivable and payable; Schedule K and K-1; Prior and subsequent year tax returns; Related returns - these are tax returns that have a relationship to the tax return under audit. Returns are considered related if an adjustment to one return requires adjustment to the other return. Returns are also considered related for audit purposes if the returns are for entities that a taxpayer controls and can manipulate to divert income or camouflage transactions; and General Partner (GP) - Additional 42 Projects. If the entity under audit owns the 42 project, it is likely that it is a flow-through entity and the general partner is the project s developer. The Service will determine whether the GP is also the GP for other 42 projects. If significant noncompliance is identified, the examination may be expanded to the other projects.   Initial Information Document Request   Owners of LIHTC properties should keep all records relating to the tax credits for at least six years after the due date (with extensions) for filing the federal income tax return for that year. The records for the first year of the credit period must be retained for at least six years after the due date (with extensions) for filing the federal income tax return for the last year of the compliance period. Prior to audit, the IRS will request - at a minimum - the following documents: Partnership Agreement; Syndication Prospectus/Offering Memorandum; Documentation of partners capital contributions; Credit Allocation Application; Market Study; Credit Allocation Award/Contract or Carryover Allocation; Extended Use Agreement; All Forms 8609 issued to the Taxpayer; Internal Audit Reports (including any third party reviews); and All Forms 8823 (including documentation of any corrective action taken); Tax returns for the tax year prior to the earliest year under audit and all tax returns for years after the tax years under audit; Work papers used to prepare the tax return under audit; Depreciation schedules; Final Cost Certification, with supporting documents; Documentation of all financing sources; Financial reports; Development contracts or agreements for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of the project; Documentation of cost allocation between land and improvements; For years under audit, rent rolls identifying the households and family size for each low-income unit; and Documentation of internal controls in place to ensure that qualified households occupy the low-income units.   If the first year of the compliance period is audited, the following information will be requested: Certificates of Occupancy, which will establish when the units were first available for occupancy; A schedule showing when each low-income unit was initially occupied/qualified; Computation of the applicable fraction, including the calculation for each month of the first year of the credit period; and A list of any units that were first occupied by qualified residents after the end of the first year of the credit period and documentation of when such units were qualified ("2/3" units).   Since the audit will include a review to ensure that tenants were not charged rent or fees not permitted by the program, the following information will be requested: Rents charged for low-income and market units; Units occupied by employees or security personnel; Rent computations based on unit sizes; Sources of any rent subsidies, such as Section 8; Utility allowances and documentation of the computation; Fees for services provided to tenants in addition to housing -g., providing meals or cleaning services in assisted living housing; Other income from related activities -g., vending machines, laundry facilities, or charges for cable/satellite television; Other income sources such as from the commercial use of a portion of the property -g., cell phone tower on the roof of a building; Documentation of funds received from other sources -g., federal grants or subsidies received during the year, additional capital contributions, or loans.   The Guide is very detailed with regard to the information that should be requested prior to an audit, and serves as a general outline for the type of documentation that owners should retain and preserve.  

HUD Moving Aggressively on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is moving forward aggressively with the departments new "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" campaign to desegregate the country s primarily white neighborhoods. Rockford, IL will be an early test for HUD s ability to impose its will on localities relative to the integration of all zip codes.   HUD notified the City of Rockford and the Rockford Housing Authority on August 3, 2015 that rejection of a 65-unit affordable housing development in a white area must be reconsidered. This notice comes just after the U.S. Supreme Court s ruling allowing the use of "disparate impact" to determine racial, ethnic and social discrimination. The permits challenges to what are deemed unfair housing practices - even if the practice was not intended to be discriminatory.   In it s notice, HUD warned the city and Housing Authority that they have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, meaning that it is not enough not to discriminate; the City must work to integrate its neighborhoods. HUD indicated that the withdrawal of the housing proposal could have an adverse impact against African-American public housing residents who would have been eligible to relocate to the new units in the a neighborhood that is 78% white. The city had planned to relocate approximately 70 residents from the public housing to the new development, but local officials gave into community opposition and killed the project - even though the project had already been awarded low-income housing tax credits.   HUD is requiring that city officials submit a new plan by October 1. While the letter to the city made no specific threat relative to federal funding, the implication was clear. Failure to approve the project in an area that will further integrate the community may lead to removal of federal funding to the city.   Actions such as this are very unpopular with Republican members of Congress, as indicated by the introduction of S. 1909, "Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act." Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced this bill, and if signed into law would gut the HUD desegregation efforts. The measure would ban the use of federal money to "implement, administer or enforce" HUD s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. The bill has been sent to the Senate Banking Committee and should be considered after the August recess. The bill has five co-sponsors, and if approved would have strong Republican backing in the House. The bill also includes language that would eliminate HUD s new database on racial disparities in each zip code. Despite clear Republican support, action on the bill is unlikely. Senate Democrats will almost certainly block its advance and even if passed by the Senate and adopted by the House, the President would veto it.   At this point, it is clear that HUD intends to move forward with its mission of integrating every ZIP Code in a way that matches a community at large. Court challenges are likely, and this is going to be a long and potentially expensive process for cities.

Role of the IRS and State Agencies in Implementing the LIHTC Program

With the revision of the IRS Audit Guide for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, the IRS is providing a comprehensive examination of the requirements of the program. Chapter 1 of the Guide provides and introduction and overview of the program. As part of this overview, the Service explains its view of the role of both the IRS and the allocating agencies in the implementation of the program.   State Agency Responsibilities The LIHTC program is jointly administered by the IRS and State Housing Credit Agencies (HCAs). Each state receives tax credits on an annual basis. The amount of credit provided to each state is generally based on the population of the state.   Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) HCAs are responsible for determining which housing projects receive credits and the amount of credit allocated. Under IRC 42(m) (1), the HCA must develop a QAP that is approved by the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the HCA. The QAP must have the following characteristics:   Identify the selection criteria to be used for determining housing priorities that are appropriate to local conditions. The selection criteria must include project location, housing needs characteristics, project and project sponsor characteristics, tenant populations with special needs, public housing waiting lists, tenant populations of individuals with children, projects intended for eventual tenant ownership, the energy efficiency of the project, and the historic nature of the project.   Gives preference to projects serving the lowest income tenants, for the longest periods, located in qualified census tracts, and which will contribute to a concerted community revitalization plan.   The HCA must use the QAP as the basis for the allocation of credits. Generally, developers apply for credits by submitting proposals that are ranked according to criteria in the QAP. If accepted, the HCA and developer will enter into a reservation agreement, followed by a binding commitment to allocate credits in the future; this is also known as a "carryover allocation." In most cases, owners have until the close of the second calendar year following the year the carryover allocation is made to place the project in service. If this deadline is not met, the credit is returned to the state for reallocation to other projects. An allocating agency may provide no more credit than is necessary to ensure a project's financial feasibility during the 15-year compliance period. The amount of credit allocated will be the amount required to attract the equity needed to close the "gap" between the total development cost and the financing available to the project. Agencies will often adjust the credit awarded by adjusting the allowable qualified basis for the project. This can create "excess basis" for a project, and is a concept that I will discuss in detail in future articles. The credit allocation is documented on Form 8609, Low-Income Housing Credit Allocation and Certification.   Compliance Monitoring   The QAP must contain the procedures the HCA will use when monitoring properties for Section 42 compliance. At a minimum, reviews must be conducted at least once every three years, during which at least 20 percent of the units will be reviewed. The monitoring must include both a physical inspection and administrative (file) review.   When noncompliance is identified or there has been a building disposition, the HCA must inform the IRS on Form 8823. If, at the time of the report to the IRS, the building is "out of compliance,"(i.e., the noncompliance has not been corrected), the IRS will send a letter to the owner identifying the type of noncompliance and instruct the owner to contact the HCA to resolve this issue. Once resolved, the HVA will file a "back in compliance" 8823 with the IRS.   IRS Responsibilities   The Low-Income Housing Credit (LIHC) Compliance Unit of the IRS is responsible for processing information submitted to the IRS by HCAs and taxpayers, providing assistance, and evaluating noncompliance for audit potential. This unit receives and processes 8823s and 8609s.   Based on HCA noncompliance reports, taxpayers are identified for audit potential. If it is determined that an audit is warranted, the complete file is sent to the appropriate IRS field office. The taxpayer is then notified that an audit has been scheduled. Audits may also be expanded, at the examiner s discretion, to include additional issues or tax returns.   In my next article, I will outline the issues analyzed by the IRS in order to determine whether a LIHTC property should be examined.

Proposed Rural Housing Service Rule will Reduce Financial Reporting Requirements

On August 6, 2015, the Rural Housing Service (RHS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that will amend current regulations to change program requirements regarding financial reporting. The proposed change will align RHS requirements with those of the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and will reduce the requirement on borrowers to produce multiple financial reports. Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than October 5, 2015.   The programs affected by the proposed rule are (1) Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants; (2) Rural Rental Housing Loans; and (3) Rural Rental Assistance.   Background   Section 515 (z) (1) of the Housing Act of 1949 requires that borrowers maintain accounting records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for all projects that receive funds from loans made or guaranteed by the Department of Agriculture under the Section 515 program. RHS considers Section 514 loans to have similar risks as 515 loans; therefore, the regulatory accounting requirements apply to both types of loans.   This proposed change is a result of RHS s participation in the White House s Domestic Policy Counsel s Rental Policy Working Group (RPWG) on an initiative to reduce duplicative requirements on customers, and align program requirements in the affordable rental housing industry. The RPWG believes high-risk properties, which consist of properties that have combined federal financial assistance of $500,000 or more, should receive more stringent evaluation of financial performance. Therefore, RHS plans to implement a risk-based threshold to set the standard for audit guidelines. It will require financial reporting to include audits based on a modified version of the HUD OIG Consolidated Audit Guide, which are also acceptable to HUD.   Combined Federal financial assistance is defined as a combination of any or all of the following sources: The outstanding principal balance of a USDA Mortgage, a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or HUD-held mortgages or loans (including flexible subsidy loans); Any USDA Rental Assistance or Project-based Section 8 assistance received during the fiscal year; Interest reduction payments received during the year (interest subsidy); and/or Federal grant funds received during the year.   The new policy eliminates a financial reporting burden by allowing owners who receive less than $500,000 in combined Federal assistance to submit owner certified financial statements instead of audited financial statements.   Section 514 and 515 proposals for new construction are still subject to cost certification.   In addition to the financial reporting change, RHS is proposing two additional certifications: The borrower will be asked to certify that there have been no changes in project ownership other than those approved by the Agency and identified in the certification; and Real estate taxes have been paid in accordance with state and/or local requirements and are current.   Owners subject to this proposed rule should obtain a copy and provide any comments to RHS by October 5, 2015.

IRS Publishes Revised LIHTC Audit Guide - August 11, 2015

The IRS has published a revised Audit Guide for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, with a revision date of August 11, 2015. The Guide is intended to assist IRS examiners when auditing Partnerships that utilize the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (LIHTC).   The Guide contains more than 330 pages and provides detailed and comprehensive information for IRS staff involved in program reviews and audits. Every area relating to the development and operation of LIHTC properties is covered in detail. The importance of the Guide cannot be overstated since it will be the primary source of guidance for IRS agents conducting audits of Section 42 properties and partnerships. Detailed discussion is included for the following areas: HFA/IRS Responsibilities; How tax returns are analyzed for audit potential; Techniques to be used during an audit; 8609 Issues; Relevance of the Extended Use Agreement; The Non-Profit Set-aside and related requirements; Removing taxpayers from the program; A comprehensive discussion of all elements relating to eligible basis; Determination of the applicable fraction; Calculation of qualified basis; Discussion of the 4% and 9% credit; Adjusting taxpayer credits; and Credit recapture   In order to provide information on the contents of the Guide in a way that will best suit my clients, I will be developing a series of articles on individual sections of the Guide and how those sections will affect development and operational decisions. As always, I will send copies of these articles directly to clients. The articles will also be posted on our website.   Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the revised Guide.

Assistance Animals - A Reminder on What is Required

On July 15, 2015, HUD charged the owners and manager of Viking Villas, a 36-unit apartment complex in Sioux Falls, SD, with a violation of the Fair Housing Act for refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation to a disabled resident by not permitting the resident to have an assistance animal.   Facts of the Case   According to her certified Physician Assistant (PA), the resident had a disability related need for an assistance animal. The PA issued a hand-written prescription dated December 9, 2013, that stated. "Due to mental illness and disability, patient requires use of companion animal for emotional and psychiatric stability. Please accommodate this request." The resident s original lease contained a no-pet policy. On or around January 7, 2014, the resident called the Manager to request an exception to the property s no-pet policy in order to obtain an assistance animal. The manager said "no." The resident told the manager, "I have a prescription for a companion animal right here in my hands," or words to that effect, but the Manager replied that she did not want to see it. When told that it was a prescription for a dog, the manager stated, "If you feel you will still need that prescription filled, you ll need to give your 60-days notice because there are absolutely no animals allowed." The property had no written policy for reasonable accommodation requests - including requests for assistance animals - in January 2014. On January 24, 2014, the resident filed a complaint with HUD, and the owner of the property was notified of the complaint on February 1, 2014. The resident purchased an assistance animal, Libby, on or around June 16, 2014, and took the animal (a Shih Tzu/Lhasa Apso mix) to the property. On or around June 17, 2014, the resident sent management a written reasonable accommodation request for an assistance animal by certified mail, attaching a copy of the PA s prescription. Shortly thereafter, the Manager hand-delivered two documents to the resident. The first document was entitled "RE: Companion Animal Request, Received 6/20/2014." It included a "Companion Animal Accommodation Agreement." If required that the resident complete the form and "attach the verification of your animal s proper current inoculations from the vet, and verification of your animal s licensure with the city " After this information was provided, management indicated that they would provide written notice regarding approval. The second document was entitled "Companion Animal/Pet Policy Agreement." The terms of the agreement included overly burdensome and discriminatory provisions, according to the HUD complaint. The provisions included: Allowing the Landlord to revoke approval of assistance animals at their "sole discretion; Requiring annual submission of evidence that the animal is receiving proper veterinarian care; Imposing size, weight and breed limitations on assistance animals; Requiring that assistance animals be more than six months old at the time of move-in; Allowing the Landlord to enter the apartment with notice to inspect for damage suspected to have been caused by the assistance animal; Imposing a $25 fine for a one-time failure to immediately remove waste and a requirement that a tenant must have a "doggie bag" available for inspection when outside with her dog; and Allowing the Landlord to evict tenants for failure to comply with any of the eight provisions of the agreement. The resident refused to sign the Agreement. Management designated the grass outside the resident s window as the spot where she could allow her dog to toilet, and would search the grassy area outside her window on a near-daily basis. Management also began to harass the resident about the dog as well as other issues, such as doors and windows allegedly slamming. The resident feared that if she was evicted, even for an illegal reason, she might lose her Section 8 Voucher. Although she would have preferred to stay at Viking Villa, the resident felt compelled to give her 30-day notice to vacate the property, and moved out in late 2014.   Legal Allegations   In the suit, HUD is alleging that the Respondents violated the FHA by discriminating against the resident on the basis of disability in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental of a dwelling, by refusing to grant the resident s requests for an accommodation to allow the resident to keep an assistance animal in her apartment. The suit also states that the respondents imposed mandatory, burdensome, and discriminatory conditions on the resident due to her disability, and that the respondents violated the law when they retaliated against the resident. HUD is requesting that the following penalties be imposed on the respondents: A declaration that the respondents have violated the Fair Housing Act; Enjoins the respondents from future discrimination due to disability; Award monetary damages to fully compensate the resident for her damages; and Assess a civil penalty and award additional relief that may be appropriate.   This case provides a clear reminder to housing operators that assistance animals are not pets, and that such animals must be permitted for disabled persons in need of such animals, unless such an accommodation is, for some reason, unreasonable. HUD issued FHEO Notice 2013-01 on April 25, 2013, which stated in part, "An assistance animal is not a pet. It is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person s disability." The Notice further states that assistance animals do not need to be individually trained or certified, and that animals other than dogs can be assistance animals.   HUD has also made it clear that the definition of "service animal" contained in ADA regulations (dogs and miniature horses), does not limit housing providers obligations to grant reasonable accommodation requests for assistance animals under either the Fair Housing Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (for Federally assisted properties). Under these laws, rules, policies, or practices must be modified to permit the use of an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation in housing when its use may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and/or the common areas of a dwelling.   Currently, disabled individuals are filing more than 50% of fair housing complaints. Owners and managers must be fully aware of the rights of the disabled in order to avoid potential liability in this area.