Tax Credit Basics

• What is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit?

• The Project

• The Partnership

• Calculating the Tax Credit

Evaluating Whether the Tax Credit is Useful for Your Project

• Other Financing Elements

Special Issues for Tax Credit Projects in Rural Areas

• Project Development and Long-Term Feasibility

• Some Notes on Joint Ventures between Nonprofits and For-Profits

• Choosing Professionals

Elements of the Tax Credit Deal

• The Tax Credit "Price" and the Pay-in Schedule

• The Internal Rate of Return

• Other Key Elements of the Partnership Agreement for the Developer

• Ways to Mitigate Risk for Both the Nonprofit Sponsor and the Investors

Applying for a Tax Credit Allocation

• Construction Completion and the Award of Tax Credits

Management

• Who Should Manage the Property?

• Program Compliance

• Changes in Qualified Basis

Compliance Monitoring Issues

Taxes and Audits

Text Resources for the Beginning Tax Credit Developer

Web Sites of Interest to the Tax Credit Developer

Glossary of Terms

Appendix A:     List of State Tax Credit Allocating Agencies and Contact Information

Appendix B:     Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code

Appendix C:    State Tax Credit Allocating Agency Requirements for Application

Appendix D:    Sample List of Due Diligence Documents Required at Syndication Closing

INTRODUCTION

This guide will provide rural nonprofit developers with a starting point for exploring the Low Income Housing Tax Credit as a possible financing instrument for their affordable multifamily housing projects.  The guide will review key facets of the tax credit and, more importantly, point out possible pitfalls for rural nonprofits at each point concerning use of the tax credits, from evaluating whether tax credits are useful for a given project to monitoring issues over the life of the project.

There are significant reasons why rural nonprofits should step carefully when approaching use of the tax credit.  Not least of these is the potential for high-volume, long-term financial liability as an owner and/or potential manager of a tax credit project.  Nonprofits also must consider carefully how to manage a relationship with for-profit partners and investors if they are going to use the tax credit successfully.  Finally, rural developers must consider a cost-benefit analysis for small projects (projects with 32 units or less) -- does the tax credit provide enough capital to compensate for the relatively high levels of due diligence, monitoring, and liability for a project with comparatively few units?  Are the maximum rents allowable under the tax credit program actually marketable within an economically depressed rural area, or would residents be just as likely to rent a trailer for $250 as a tax credit unit for $300?

This document is intended as a complement to existing training and reference materials.  This guide will alert nonprofits to special considerations they should take into account in the beginning of their quest for financing small rural projects with the tax credit.  However, any individual or organization should consult with technical manuals and technical assistance providers when pondering the actual use of the tax credit.  Readers are also encouraged to use this guide as reference material; in addition to a basic introduction to the tax credit, this guide provides textual resources, contact numbers, and other reference materials which will be of some assistance to the rural nonprofit housing developer throughout the development process.  In particular, there are extensive footnotes and cross-references to Joseph Guggenheim’s Tax Credits for Low Income Housing. [i]  While Guggenheim’s text is intended for the general audience learning about tax credits (not rural entities, or nonprofits in particular), it is a comprehensive and in-depth explanation of the tax credit; HAC strongly encourages developers to read Guggenheim and keep it close by at all times.  A glossary will clarify definitions of “terms of art” particular to the tax credit industry for readers unfamiliar with some language (terms which are defined later in the glossary appear in italics in the text).  Finally, an extensive index has been included to facilitate continued use of this guide as additional questions develop for a rural nonprofit engaged in providing affordable multifamily housing.

Back to Table of Contents

HISTORY OF THE TAX CREDIT

 Nonprofits seeking to utilize tax credits for their developments for the first time should understand some of the politics and history of the program.  Within the nonprofit sector, the program has been regarded by some as somewhat controversial, largely because its costs to both the federal government and the project can outstrip the costs of some direct subsidized loans such as Section 515 Rural Rental Housing.  Tax credits do, however, provide a lucrative incentive to private industry to invest in affordable multifamily housing.  Also, the long-term structure of tax credits helps ensure that low-income units remain low-income and occupied for at least fifteen years; should the low-income percentage of units drop within the first fifteen years, the number of tax credits available to the investor is reduced.  This introduces what some have labeled “market” discipline perceived to be lacking in some programs.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act established the Low Income Housing Tax Credit in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. [ii]  Originally, the program was enacted for a three-year period ending December 1, 1989, but it received extensions in 1990, 1991, and 1992.  In 1993, Congress permanently authorized the tax credit program. [iii]

In 1995, the tax credit program came under fire in Congress for alleged abuses -- primarily focused on developer fees and noncompliance -- and a “sunset” of the program was proposed.  The program survived, but the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) was asked to determine the characteristics of tax credit projects and their residents and to evaluate the efficacy of IRS and state monitoring agency controls over program operations.  Released in March of 1997, the report found that the tax credit program actually surpasses its legislated goals in some respects.  The tax credit is targeted to projects with very low-income and low-income residents.  In fact, approximately three-quarters of households residing in tax credit projects had very low-incomes in 1996, and the average income of residents was about $13,000.  However, GAO did conclude that state agencies need to increase their efforts to evaluate the accuracy and reasonableness of projected development costs in tax credit applications.  GAO also recommended that state agencies improve their compliance monitoring efforts, and stressed that the viability of tax credit projects over the long term of the compliance period has not yet been tested, since the program is still only 11 years old.  (Compliance periods run at least 15 years, generally 30 years.  Many state tax credit agencies have also indicated preferences for projects with commitments to low-income use beyond the statute’s baseline of 15 years.)

Although GAO’s report and the popularity of the tax credit with private industry have probably alleviated the threat of an end to the tax credit program, Congress will be examining GAO’s recommendations for reform and prevention of abuse with an eye toward potentially extensive regulatory reform, the cost of which would most likely be passed on to applicants and owners of tax credit projects.  However, it is also possible that GAO’s relatively optimistic report will support a drive to increase the state allocating cap on tax credits. [iv]

Information from the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Database

Recently, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided for creation of a database capturing characteristics of tax credit projects placed in service from 1990 through 1994. [v]  HUD has also published a report detailing major findings of characteristics of projects for which most information was available, namely projects placed in service from 1992 through 1994.  The report indicates several trends which are noteworthy to tax credit developers generally and nonprofit rural developers specifically.  Among its findings:

• Average project size for the three analyzed years was 42.2 units; about three-quarters of the projects consisted of 50 units or less.  However, the average project size increased over the three years from about 37 units to about 45 units.  The number of projects with 10 or fewer units decreased from 30 to 16 percent of all projects over the three years.

• The vast majority of projects consist of 100 percent or nearly 100 percent low-income units.  (Under tax credit regulations, not every unit in the project must serve low income households, though each project must meet minimum thresholds of low-income occupancy.  Tax credits are only awarded based on the percentage of units which do qualify as low-income.  See the 20/50 rule and the 40/60 rule and minimum set-aside in the glossary.)

• Nearly 80 percent of the units produced over the three years were one- and two-bedroom units.

• Nonprofit sponsorship rose from 18 percent in 1992 to 27 percent in 1994.

• About two-thirds of projects across the three analyzed years were new construction only;[1] about one-third were rehabilitation.  Less than one percent of the projects entailed both rehabilitation and new construction.

• For the years 1992 through 1994, almost 35 percent of projects (consisting of about 25 percent of all units) were financed by tax credits in conjunction with RHS Section 515 Rural Rental Housing loans. [vi]

• While about 98 percent of units in nonprofit projects and Section 515-financed projects were qualifying low-income units, the qualifying ratio in bond-financed projects was much lower, about 64 percent of units.

• Only about 19 percent of tax credit units were located in nonmetro areas, compared with 54 percent in central cities and 26 percent in non-central city metro areas.

• The average size of projects located in nonmetro areas was 28 units, compared with 54 units in suburban areas and 48 units in central cities.

• About 30 percent of tax credit projects in central cities and suburbs were sponsored by nonprofits, compared with only about 8 percent of tax credit projects in nonmetro areas.

• Only about 60 percent of units receiving initial reservations for tax credits are actually placed in service and receive tax credit awards.  Data was not available to discern why the other 40 percent dropped from the program.

The results of the database analysis raise some interesting points for nonprofit developers.  Nonprofit sponsorship is clearly increasing in the program, perhaps as a result of the 10 percent nonprofit set-aside and states’ increasing efforts to give preferences to nonprofit-sponsored projects.  However, the results of the database analysis regarding project characteristics in nonmetro areas point out some issues which will be discussed throughout this guide.  Nonmetro projects seem smaller than metro projects; however, project size across geographical areas has increased over the short span of time analyzed in the database.  Also, RHS Section 515 loans were the primary financing source for tax-credit projects in nonmetro areas, providing an average qualifying ratio of 98 percent low-income units per project.  Now that Section 515 has been virtually defunded, how should nonmetro (rural) developers proceed to finance their tax credit projects?  The data indicate that tax-exempt bonds, while not likely to disappear in the next couple of years as did Section 515, do not seem to offer the same opportunity to focus on lower-income households throughout a project.  (The report captured statistics on the use of Section 515 and tax-exempt bonds in conjunction with tax credits, but did not include data on HOME funds.  Many rural housing developers are now using HOME funds to finance tax credit projects.)  Finally, about 40 percent of units which receive a tax credit reservation do not seem to be placed in service using the reservation.  While the researchers were unable to determine why the success rate was apparently so low, it does raise the specter of problems between the time of reservation and the projected close of construction.  How can nonprofits (or developers in general) ensure that their projects have a good success rate from the time they are reserved tax credits to the time in which the units should be placed in service?

These questions will arise throughout this guide, although no concrete, fool-proof answers are available.  This guide will answer obvious questions and point out areas in which many projects have experienced trouble.

Other Forms of Tax Credits (SHPO, State Tax Credits)

There are other forms of tax credits not to be confused with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.  Historic Preservation credits and state tax credits (California and Washington, for example, have excellent state-financed affordable housing tax credits) provide different rates of credit for different purposes.  Historic Preservation Credits are allocated via State Housing Preservation Offices (SHPO) and the National Park Service for the rehabilitation and preservation of buildings which are historically significant to their surrounding neighborhoods or which were constructed before 1936.  Some states have also established tax credits for affordable housing, though each program may vary in terms of percentage credit offered and eligible uses.  In California, for example, tax credits are available primarily for farmworker housing.

While the incentives, formulas, and targeted populations of these other tax credit programs may be similar to those of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, HAC cannot emphasize enough that there are important differences between the LIHTC and these other programs; as with any affordable housing subsidy, those seeking assistance with other forms of tax credits should research those programs directly and carefully.

For purposes of brevity, this guide will use the term “tax credit” to refer to the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit specifically, unless otherwise noted.

Back to Table of Contents

TAX CREDIT BASICS

What is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit?

Unlike a tax deduction, which reduces the amount of income against which taxes are levied, a tax credit is a credit against the actual amount of taxes due to the government by a for-profit entity. 

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit in particular is a credit against the federal tax liability of a for-profit entity which invests capital toward the development or rehabilitation of an affordable multifamily housing project.  Unlike many federal affordable housing programs/incentives, the tax credit is part of the United States Internal Revenue Code (tax law); it was established in Section 42 of the Code by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Act greatly altered and reduced the avenues by which for-profit entities and individuals could benefit from investing in affordable housing, instead narrowing the field of incentives for investment through the creation of the tax credit. 

Essentially, the tax credit offers affordable multifamily housing developers an avenue through which to obtain additional capital for development through for-profit investment in the project.  The tax credits awarded to a project and claimed by the for-profit investor/owner in the project are claimed by the owner over a period of ten years.  In return, the project must set aside a certain portion of its units to households with low incomes for at least fifteen years and usually 30 years. [vii]  (Extended Use Agreements with state tax credit allocating agencies may increase the period of low-income use to as much as 30 or 50 years, and other subsidized financing may entail their own low-income use stipulations.)

Each state, through its tax credit allocating agency (usually the Housing Finance Agency), is permitted to reserve annually a total of $1.25 in tax credits for each person in its population.  The agency accepts applications from developers and reserves tax credits for projects on a competitive basis.  Projects which are issued tax-exempt bond financing for 50 percent or more of the total development costs do not have to compete for tax credits.  They are automatically qualified to receive as many tax credits as necessary to ensure the feasibility of the project, and the amount of these tax credits is not counted against the state’s allocation cap.  Each year, each state must set aside 10 percent of its allocable tax credits for nonprofit developers.

Projects have until the end of the second calendar year after their tax credit reservation has been awarded to complete construction if they obtain a carryover allocation from the agency.  To qualify for the carryover, applicants must certify and document that the project is 10 percent complete by the end of the reservation year.  If the project is not completed by the end of its deadline, the applicant must return its reservation.  The agency may then reallocate the credits within two years to another project.  If the project is completed, then the allocating agency notifies the project and the IRS of its final award of tax credits on Form 8609 for each building of the project. [viii]

The amount of tax credits awarded to a project is based upon the amount of development costs and the number of low-income units in the project, as well as the type of construction financing.  Tax credits are calculated as a percentage of the qualified basis [ix] of total development costs of the project.  This percentage rate is set by the Department of the Treasury, which calculates a tax credit rate which will produce a present value [x] of tax credits equal to either 30 or 70 percent of the total eligible development costs over the ten years of tax credits to be received by the investor.  (See Guggenheim, page 49, for the actual formula used to calculate the tax credit rate.) The exact rates are established monthly based on current interest rates, but hover around 4 and 9 percent. 

Whether or not a project uses the 4 or 9 percent credit depends on the type of project being developed and the source of financing.  New construction and substantial rehabilitation projects can use the 9 percent credit to the extent that they use financing which is not considered to be federally subsidized.  (State funds and bank loans are not considered federally subsidized, and neither are HOME or CDBG funds if certain requirements are met.  For more details see “Other Financing Elements” below.)  New construction and substantial rehabilitation projects which utilize federally subsidized financing can utilize the 4 percent credit.  In rehabilitation projects, the 4 percent credit is applied to the acquisition costs of the site (not including land) regardless of the presence of federal subsidy.

Investors pay an agreed-upon percentage of the tax credit amount (tax credit “price”) into a project in the form of capital contributions.  This percentage varies widely according to the particular terms of a tax credit deal, but investors may pay anywhere from 60 to about 75 cents on the tax credit dollar.  The process of “selling” tax credits to an investor is called syndication.  Like the tax credit price itself, the timing of the capital contributions is an issue to be negotiated between the general partners and the investor(s).  In some projects, all of the contribution may be made prior to the start of construction.  In others, the contribution may be paid over several years.   (See “The Tax Credit ‘Price’ and the Pay-in Schedule” below.)   An investor claims the total tax credit amount allocated each year for ten years, barring tax credit reductions or recapture, as explained below. 

There may be additional costs associated with tax credit deals, including professional fees for accountants, legal counsel, state monitoring costs, and guarantees.  If an intermediary, or syndicator, maintains investment funds for investors and handles the syndication deal with the project sponsors/general partners, additional costs will be incurred for the syndicator’s work in marketing and managing the investment funds.  These costs will decrease the amount of capital which eventually reaches the project.  Therefore, while tax credits bring another source of financing to a development, they also increase the amount of work and “soft” costs associated with the project for accountants and attorneys’ fees, as well as arranging any extra reserves of cash demanded by the limited partner to safeguard their investment.  As much as 20 or 30 percent of the equity may be consumed by these costs unless the project sponsors are able to set limits on the spending. [xi]

Tax credits were never intended to provide all of the necessary financing for an affordable housing development.  Tax credits can provide from 40 to 60 percent of the financing in the form of equity investment.  Developers must rely on other financing for a portion of construction and permanent financing at the very least; additionally, a bridge loan may be necessary to meet the gap between the amount of the permanent mortgage and the costs of paying off construction-period financing until the full amount of capital contributions is received.  Whether the balance of the financing is provided by government agencies or banks, the terms of the additional financing are major determinants of project feasibility.  (Again, see “Other Financing Elements” below.)

The Project

For a project to be eligible for tax credits, at least 40 percent of its units must be set aside for households with incomes of less than 60 percent of the area median or at least 20 percent of its units must be set aside for households with incomes of less than 50 percent of area median.  These two thresholds are denoted as the 20/50 rule and the 40/60 rule.  At the time of application for tax credits, the applicant must elect under which rule the project will be eligible; this decision governs the minimum set-aside of the project for the life of the compliance period.  The election also sets the standard for tenant income eligibility and rent maximums. Area median incomes (AMI) for each county are determined annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; projects must use HUD’s figures for 50 and 60 percent of AMI to determine income eligibility of tenants and rent maximums for low-income units. [xii]

Rent maximums are set by unit size rather than actual family size or family income, according to certain assumptions about how many people will live in a given unit and the maximum eligible income for a family of that size. [xiii]  Efficiencies are presumed to house only one person; for units with one or more bedrooms, the maximum rent calculation imputes -1 people per bedroom.  In a two-bedroom unit, for example, the maximum rent would be based upon 30 percent of the maximum eligible income for a household of three people.  This maximum rent also must cover utility costs, so an amount for estimated monthly utility costs for that size unit is further subtracted to arrive finally at the actual maximum rent chargeable on a given size unit.  The fact that rent maximums are based on maximum eligible income adjusted for the imputed household size of the unit (not an actual family) means that a household with a very low income may pay the same rent as a low-income family in the same size unit.   

Rent maximums are an important factor in determining feasibility of tax credit use for a project; if development costs plus the costs of utilizing tax credits mean that monthly rent will exceed a maximum rent for a given unit, then the project cannot use tax credits without somehow reducing monthly rent (through lower debt service for subsidized loans, or use of Section 8 certificates or state rental assistance, for example). [xiv]  This is especially important to note in economically depressed rural areas, where area median incomes are quite low, and eligible incomes and maximum rents are similarly low.  There may be no problem finding income-eligible households to live in the project; but will the project be able to survive on monthly rents that are actually affordable to these residents?  Tax credits do provide another source of financing for projects, but they do not really lower rents to the extent that a direct subsidized loan would.  Without ongoing subsidies or reserves, this is a difficult prospect for many tax credit projects in rural areas. 

Tax credits may be allocated for four different purposes: new construction, substantial rehabilitation, acquisition, and federally subsidized new construction or rehabilitation.  For non-federally subsidized new construction or rehabilitation, the 9 percent tax rate applies.  For both acquisition and federally subsidized projects, the 4 percent rate applies. Where tax credits are concerned, “federally subsidized financing” indicates a loan or obligation of federal funds with an interest rate lower than prevailing Treasury interest rates, as measured by the Applicable Federal Rate (AFR).  (Some federally subsidized financing is allowable in conjunction with the 9 percent credit; these programs are discussed specifically later under "Other Financing Elements.”)

There are also restrictions on the types of facilities for which tax credits may be utilized.  All units must be “suitable for occupancy” and comply with local building codes.  Unless the project is single-room occupancy housing or transitional housing for the homeless, the project must use at least six-month lease periods.  In some cases and within restrictions, special needs housing, group housing, small owner-occupied rental buildings, and single-family buildings operated on a rental basis may qualify for tax credits.  (For more information on this subject, see Guggenheim, Eligibility: Types of Housing and Facilities, pages 31 through 37.)

Location also plays a certain role in the tax credit allocation process: projects in HUD-designated low-income census tracts or difficult development areas can earn higher amounts of tax credits in recognition that project feasibility is especially hard to achieve in these areas.  The eligible basis used to calculate tax credits awards in these cases is increased by 30 percent on new construction or rehabilitation expenditures (but not acquisition costs).  The additional tax credits will only be awarded if the project is not feasible without them.  For more information, see Guggenheim, pages 39 through 41.

To be eligible for the rehabilitation credit, total rehabilitation and related expenditures over a 24-month period must be at least equal to the greater of:

• $3,000 per low income unit, or

• 10 percent of the project’s unadjusted basis.

Only those rehabilitation expenditures which benefit low-income units (including common areas) count toward the threshold.  However, once the threshold is met, tax credits are calculated on the total rehabilitation costs (including those for non-eligible units) multiplied by the percentage of the building that is set aside for low-income households multiplied by the tax credit rate.  (See “Calculating the Tax Credit” below for an example.)

• To be eligible for the acquisition credit, a project must fulfill one of the following conditions: 

• qualify for the rehabilitation credit, or

• for buildings acquired from a government unit, meet a threshold of an average of $3,000 of rehab costs for each low-income unit in the building (no 10 percent threshold caveat).

• for projects which have received an IRS waiver to avoid mortgage prepayment and loss of units from the low-income housing stock (not a waiver to avoid foreclosure and loss of federal mortgage funds), meet a $2,000 expenditure threshold for each low-income unit in the building (again, no 10 percent threshold condition).

Since acquisition is treated separately from rehabilitation costs, it is possible to use federal subsidies to acquire a building at a 4 percent tax credit rate while using non-federally subsidized financing for rehabilitation costs at a 9 percent tax credit rate.

If the project is located in a Difficult Development Area or a Designated Low Income Census Tract, the tax credit amount is calculated based on 130 percent of the qualified basis.  ( See Guggenheim, pages 39-41.)

The Partnership

Ownership of a project developed with tax credits is a complex issue.  Generally, tax credit projects are owned by a limited partnership [xv] which consists of at least two entities: a general partner (for-profit or nonprofit) which retains approximately 1 percent ownership and approximately 99 percent responsibility for ensuring the project’s continuing existence and compliance with tax regulations; and a limited partner (for-profit, to take advantage of the benefits of the tax credits) which, in return for its capital contributions to the development of the project, retains approximately 99 percent ownership of the project. Essentially, a limited partnership provides a construct through which various aspects of ownership (cash, equity, liability, and responsibility) may be distributed to different partners as agreed in a partnership agreement.   The general partner is responsible for ensuring a project’s successful development and rent-up, continuing operation and management, as well as compliance with tax regulations.  The limited partner is responsible for making capital contributions in the amount and according to the schedule specified in the partnership agreement. The 99 percent share of ownership, along with 99 percent of the tax credits and tax losses, accrues to the limited partner(s), while 1 percent of ownership, along with 1 percent of the tax credits and losses (meaningless to a nonprofit general partner), accrue to the general partner(s).  Limited partners are liable only to the extent of their investment (capital or equity) in the tax credits, although in practice they will require some protections on their investment and compensation from the general partner should the project not yield as many tax credits as projected.  These protections may exist in the form of Guarantee Funds or other arrangements between the limited and general partners in the partnership agreement.  Any such arrangements should be discussed and reviewed vigorously to ensure that the arrangements are equitable to both (or all) partners.  General partners are liable for the entire property and partnership.

The limited partnership may include more than one general partner. If so, different  responsibilities may be divided among them.  General partner responsibilities entail:

• Arranging for day-to-day management of the project (managing general partner)

• Ensuring compliance with Section 42 regulations and any state monitoring requirements of the project (managing general partner)

• Arranging for annual audits and tax form preparations on behalf of the limited partnership (tax matters partner)

• Managing or arranging for management of accounts established on behalf of the partnership and the project (managing general partner)

A general partner may be a for-profit or nonprofit entity or an individual.

Limited partner responsibilities entail: 

• Providing its investment capital in the form of capital contributions, usually paid in several installments over the first several years of the project’s life

A limited partner must be a for-profit entity in order to take advantage of the tax credit.  An individual, corporation, or partnership may be the limited partner.  However, passive-loss restrictions on tax credit income limit the extent to which an individual may benefit from the tax credit.

The single most important document of a limited partnership is the partnership agreement, which governs all interaction and expectations among the partners.  The partnership agreement and fee agreements establish the amount and scheduling of capital contributions, management fees, incentive management fees, payments to partnership reserves and guarantee funds, and developer fees, as well as procedures for removal of general partners should fraud or gross negligence occur.  Fee agreements are separate but connected to partnership agreements.

There are two basic structures of limited partnerships: one-tier and two-tier partnerships.  The one-tier structure is generally used when one property is to be syndicated; the two-tier structure is utilized when several properties will be syndicated using an equity fund.  The figures on the following page illustrate each structure.

Calculating the Tax Credit

The number of tax credits allocable to a project relates directly to the following concerns.

1. The lesser of the percentage of units or the percentage of floor space in low-income units which will be set aside for households with low incomes.

2. The total amount of eligible development costs (does not include the cost of the land or any non-depreciable expenditure).

3. The applicable tax credit rate, as determined by the type of project and financing, and calculated by the Treasury each month.

Considerations must be taken into account for each of these variables:

1. Should all of the units in the project be allocated to low-income use?

   Most projects have 100 percent low-income units, therefore garnering the highest amount of tax credits possible for a given project.  However, if the project is mixed-income, then rental income may be higher through the life of the project and therefore the project’s economics may be more feasible.  Also, some state tax credit agencies have elected to give preferences to mixed-income projects.

    

2. Only depreciable development costs count towards the project’s eligible basis.  Land acquisition costs, for example, may not be included in the basis.  (See Guggenheim for a description of eligible and ineligible costs, pages 37 and 39.)  Project sponsors may elect whether to include a federal grant in the basis and receive a 4 percent tax credit for federally subsidized financing or exclude the grant from the basis and retain a 9 percent tax credit, assuming all other financing is non-federally financed.  

3. Since tax credit rates are calculated by the Treasury monthly based on current interest rates, projections assume 4 percent and 9 percent, depending upon the type of project and financing.  It is important to use the correct tax rate in projections for the appropriate costs, and to use different types of financing strategically to be allocated the greatest amount of credits.  For example, a developer using grant funds or federally subsidized financing to acquire a building and private financing for a permanent mortgage and construction financing can utilize the 9 percent credit against all construction costs, only utilizing the 4 percent credit on the building acquisition costs.  

The owner chooses whether the actual tax credit rate for the 30 and 70 percent present value credits will be the rate in effect either in the month in which the allocating agency reserves tax credits for the project or the month the building is placed in service.  Generally it is helpful to know the exact credit rate when syndicating the tax credits, so that investors can know the full value of the credits.  However, if a project sponsor absolutely knows that interest rates will be higher at the placed in service date, than the sponsor may wish to use the tax credit rate published then, since it will be higher based on higher interest rates.

To calculate the maximum amount of tax credits for which a project is eligible, the developer first establishes the total amount of development costs, then subtracts expenses for land and other ineligible expenses to arrive at the project’s eligible basis.  This amount is then multiplied by the percentage of units (or floor space) which will be set aside for low-income households, arriving at the project’s qualified basis.  Multiplying the qualified basis by the tax credit rate produces the maximum annual tax credit for which the project is eligible.

For example, a new construction project has total development costs of $1,200,000, land cost of $100,000 and a federal grant for $100,000.  The project will consist of all low-income units.  

$90,000 Annual Tax Credit Amount multiplied by 10 years of the Credit Period equals $900,000 in tax credits to syndicate.

$40,000 Annual Tax Credit Amount multiplied by 10 years of the Credit Period equals $400,000 in tax credits to syndicate.

Calculating the tax credit amount on a rehabilitation project is slightly more complex than on a new construction project, because it entails calculating tax credits on the rehabilitation expenditures separately from the acquisition expenditures.  Additionally, the developer needs to keep in mind the minimum rehabilitation costs discussed above in “The Project.”  The following example assumes a rehabilitation project with $750,000 acquisition costs, $1,000,000 rehabilitation costs, and no federal subsidy.

$119,000 Annual Tax Credit Amount multiplied by 10 years of the Credit Period equals $1,190,000 in tax credits to syndicate.

Because of the minimum rehabilitation costs necessary to qualify the project to receive the rehabilitation credit, an additional calculation must be performed to ensure that total rehabilitation expenditures at least equal the greater of $3,000 per low-income unit or 10 percent of the building’s unadjusted basis. 

Assume there are 50 units in the project, and the project will be 100 percent occupied by low-income households.  First, establish which is greater: $3,000 per low-income unit or 10 percent of the building’s adjusted basis.  

$3,000 x 50 = $150,000

.10 x $1,000,000 = $100,000

Total rehabilitation expenditures must be equal to or greater than $150,000 in this example.  Since rehabilitation expenditures total $1,000,000, this project is eligible for the rehabilitation tax credit.  Generally, rehabilitation projects will not have difficulty meeting the minimum expenditure threshold. 

It should be noted here that qualified basis is subject to change between the time of the tax credit reservation from the allocating agency and the time when the agency makes its actual allocation on the last day of the first year of the credit period. The initial year of the credit period is either the year in which the building is placed in service or the subsequent year, at the option of the owner.  (See the discussion of construction issues below.)  At that time, the tax credit calculation will be adjusted up or down if the eligible basis or the percentage of low-income units has changed.  When the allocating agency files Form 8609 notifying the IRS and the owner of the tax credit award, this sets the benchmark of qualified basis to which the project is held for the rest of the compliance period.  Should qualified basis change in a given year, either because of vacancies, additional low-income units, or other reasons, the amount of tax credits claimable by the partnership changes accordingly.  (See the sections below on monitoring and management issues for more information on tax credit recapture and reduced qualified basis.)

Back to Table of Contents

EVALUATING WHETHER THE TAX CREDIT IS USEFUL FOR YOUR PROJECT

Tax credits are a tempting financing source because they are the largest federal source of affordable multifamily financing, and the state allocations include a nonprofit set-aside.  However, a nonprofit should not attempt such a project unless it is demonstrably feasible, and the nonprofit is able to sustain the amount of staff time, effort, and risk that will be incurred during both project development and the compliance period.  As noted in one article, “Don’t undertake a project just because there is a need for affordable housing. Good intentions will not make up for bad decisions or bad projects." [xvi]

When attempting to determine whether a project is feasible when utilizing the tax credit, the first place to start is with a professionally performed market study or housing needs analysis (as for any housing project) to determine whether there is a need for the housing.  If there is a need for affordable housing, the market study or needs analysis should also reveal at what income level there is a need, what rents exist in the area for comparable units, what size units are needed, what population needs the housing (elderly, family, etc.) and how many units are needed within each category of income level, unit size, and population.

The developer should then find the HUD-calculated Area Median Income (AMI) for the county in which the project will be located.  Based on HUD’s determinations for 50 and 60 percent of area median income for the county, the maximum allowable gross rents (rent plus an allowance for utilities) on a tax credit property are 30 percent of each qualifying income level according to unit size. [xvii]  The developer should compare these rents with others in the community; are they comparable with rents on similar units?  In some rural areas where incomes are excessively low, the maximum allowable rents on a tax credit property are comparable to or even higher than rents for comparable units (even if the “comparable” unit is a mobile home).

Based on the developer’s sense (or preferably knowledge) of the non-tax credit financing available for the project, he/she should be able to calculate the amount by which development costs must be reduced so that the project’s debt service will be low enough to be covered by rental income.  This is the amount that will have to be covered by tax credit equity.  The developer should calculate the maximum amount of tax credits available for the project as shown above and compare this amount to the gap in financing. 

If the project looks marginal at this point in the planning process, the developer should consider not doing the project unless other funding sources can be secured.  As one developer noted, “If a tax credit project looks marginal on paper, it will be a disaster in reality.” It may, of course, be possible to obtain HOME funds at 1 percent interest to significantly lower the amount of debt service on the project and make it feasible.  Or it may be possible to rearrange other financing sources to take best advantage of tax credits available for the project.   

Other Financing Elements

The tax credit program inherently drives the project sponsor to consider financing strategies in terms of federally subsidized and non-federally subsidized financing.  Market-rate loans earn a higher tax credit rate (9 percent) than tax-exempt bonds or other federally subsidized financing. which earn a 4 percent tax credit rate.  In recent years many state housing agencies have contributed HOME or state-generated funds to help finance tax credit projects.  These loans typically have interest rates of one percent and a term of 40 to 50 years.  When combined with tax credits, the loans can make projects feasible in rural areas with low median incomes.  It is important to carefully evaluate each situation.

Owners may opt to subtract federally subsidized loans from basis in order to retain the 9 percent credit on the remaining construction costs.  In fact, if a federally subsidized loan is used for 57.1 percent or less of new construction or rehabilitation costs, it should be subtracted from the project’s basis in order to retain the 9 percent credit on the remaining construction costs.  (Nine percent of 42.9 percent of development costs is larger than 4 p