LIHTC Court Rulings

General

General Affordable Housing
Property Tax Assessment
Real Estate Professional
Right of First Refusal

General


Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services
Court rules it is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits extension of the COVID-19 eviction moratorium.
Aug. 26, 2021

Collins et al. v. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
Court rules that the structure of the FHFA is unconstitutional and the president has the power to fire the agency’s director.
June 23, 2021

Department of Treasury and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Incorporated
The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (“ICP”), sued the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), asserting, inter alia, claims under Section 3608 of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and the Fifth Amendment.
Dec. 30, 2019

Downtown Action to Save Housing v. Midland Corporate Tax Credit XIV LP, et al.
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Defendants' 22 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Within twenty-one (21) days of the issuance of this order, the parties shall file a joint status report proposing a new trial date and pre-trial deadlines.
Feb. 26, 2019

U.S. Department of the Treasury and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and  v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. 
Dismissal of plaintiff's lawsuit against Treasury and OCC alleging the LIHTC program perpetuates racial segregation in Dallas, due to plaintiff's lack of standing and merits in claim
Feb. 6, 2019

UNIQUEST DELAWARE LLC and UNILAND HOLDINGS LLC as Tax Matters Partner, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant
Cash Grants to Partnership held Taxable Income
March 27, 2018

New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling re: Adoption of NJAC 5:96
Ruling that cities must build or renovate units to make up for 16-year period that followed the expiration of the Council of Affordable Housing's rules.
Jan. 18, 2017

Canton Club East Partners Ltd. v. MI State Housing Dev. Authority
Violation of Code Sec. 42, by refusing to excuse LLC from its obligation to maintain property as affordable housing during extended 15-year use period, was dismissed.
Dec. 3, 2015

David J. Maines and Tami L. Maines v. Commissioner
State income liablity
March 11, 2015

Galveston Portfolio LTD. v. Commissioner
Additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1)
Feb. 26, 2015

Amerisouth v. Commissioner
Allowable cost segregation in depreciable rental real estate
March 12, 2012

Tempel v. Commissioner
State tax credits as property
April 5, 2011

United States v. G-I Holdings Inc.
Dec. 14, 2009

Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants and Specialties LP, GAF Chemicals Corporation, A Partner Other Than The Tax Matter Partner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Partner statute of limitation governs partnership item
June 29, 2000

General Affordable Housing

Amtax Holdings v. Washington State Housing Finance Commission
Aug. 24, 2021

Alabama Association of Realtors v. United States District of Columbia
The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.
May 5, 2021

Creekside Limited Partnership v Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
In January 2018 Creekside requested to exercise the qualified contract option described in the Internal Revenue Code to terminate the project’s affordability restrictions. AHFC denied this request on the ground that Creekside had committed to maintaining the affordability restriction for the full 30 years without a qualified contract option. The Supreme Court found that the allocation plan language was not ambiguous and that it is unreasonable for Creekside to believe it was awarded the 6 additional points merely for agreeing to federal requirements and not for agreeing with AHFC’s 30-year affordability commitment.
March 12, 2021

Michael Tuttle et al vs. Front Street Affordable Housing Partners
Court finds termination of extended-use agreement in connection with qualified contract process was not valid, due to fact that more stringent affordability requirements can be applied.
Aug. 12, 2020

Open Communities Alliance v. Ben S. Carson, Sr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Preliminary Injunction on HUD's Two-Year Delay of Small-Area FMR Rrule
Dec. 23, 2017

Decision Reversed: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project
Aug. 26, 2016

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project
Disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act
June 25, 2015

California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose
Cities can require affordable housing from developers
June 15, 2015

Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington Settlement
The appellate court found that the trial court should have dismissed the action.
May 13, 2015

Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington Settlement Agreement
The Parties agree to certification, for purposes of this Class Settlement only, as a class action pursuant to Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 32.
Oct. 30, 2015

Binder v. BRCP/GM Ellington Settlement
The parties have reached a conditional settlement of this case which will resolve this case through a class-wide settlement. The settlement will also resolve the related case of Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington, Multnomah County Case No. 0711-13783, through dismissal.
Nov. 2, 2015

Proposed Settlement Binder v. BRCP/GM Ellington LLC and Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington

Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington
Court of Appeals decision requiring continued extended use period for LIHTC property after the state housing finance agency terminated the development's use restrictions for the owner's noncompliance with LIHTC program rules
Oct. 26, 2011

Denied petitions for review in Sarah Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellington
May 17, 2012

National Housing Law Project Amicus Curiae Brief
Aug. 27, 2009

Nordbye v. BRCP/GM Ellinton, 2007
Complaint for declatory and injunctive relief based on rights under contract, equitable servitude, servitude and restrictive covenant.

The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al.
Finds that plaintiff has proved its disparate racial impact claim under the Fair Housing Act, but it otherwise finds in favor of defendants.
March 20, 2012

The Inclusive Communities Project Inc.'s Motion for a New Trial (September 23, 2016)
The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.'s Brief in Support of Motion for a New Trial (September 23, 2016)
Oral Argument on Behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondent (January 21, 2015)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (March 24, 2014)
TDHCA's Proposed Remedial Plan (Filed May 18, 2012)
ICP's Positions on TDHCA's Proposed Remedial Plan
Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Objections--Frazier Revitalization Inc. (August 7, 2012)
Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Remedial Plan (August 7, 2012)
Judgement (August 7, 2012)
Brief in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement or, Alternatively, for New Trial (September 4, 2012)

Cal. Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos
Dec. 29, 2011
Supreme Court finding that redevelopment agencies do not have a protected right to exist that immunizes them from statutory dissolution by the Legislature; and that redevelopment agencies and their sponsoring communities do have a protected right not to make payments to various funds benefiting schools and special districts as a condition of continued operation.

California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos
Challenges consitutionality of ABx1 26 and ABx1 27
July 15, 2011

The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al.
Grants the plaintiff civil rights group's motion for summary judgment on the questions of whether the evidence establishes prima facie cases of unlawful disparate impact and deliberate racial discrimination in the allocation decisions of a housing credit agency
Sept. 28, 2010

KDF Post Street v. SF Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board
San Francisco's rent control ordinance and the ability to claim low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs)
Aug.26, 2010

Cricket Hollow Partners, LP and Cricket Hollow Development, Inc. v. MMA Cricket Hollow, LLC
Forseeability of additional tax credits
July 16, 2009

El Patio Community Housing Partners v. Commissioner
Petition for Readjustment of Partnership Items Under Code Section 6226 (December 9, 2008)
Tax Court Decision
March 18, 2009
Termination of tenancy of over-income tenants

Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches Inc. v. Cornerstone Residential Management LLC
Plaintiff does not have standing to challenge Defendants’ award of tax credits through the LIHTC program, or other federal aid in the form of loans, grants, advances or contributions.
Sept. 17, 2008

State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Duncan
The receipt of state LIHTCs does not trigger prevailing wage requirements
April 23, 2008 

United States v. McSha Properties Inc.
Inflation of construction costs, thus increasing eligible basis for Section 42 low-income housing tax credits issued in connection with affordable housing project
March 6, 2008

Lee v. Commissioner
Sept. 11, 2006

Key Investment Fund Limited Partnership XIX v. Urban Partnership LLC
Aug. 22 , 2006

State Building and Construction Trades Council v. California Department of Industrial RelationsSan Francisco Superior Court overturned the earlier Woodhaven ruling and ruled that receipt of California state credits constitutes receipt of California public funds and therefore causes a state prevailing wage requirement.

Bentley Court II LP v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
A partnership must recapture low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) it claimed during closed tax years regardless of the statute of limitation
May 31, 2006

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
Plaintiffs’ principal claim that the franchise tax credit depletes state funds to which they contribute through their taxes, and thus diminishes the total funds available for lawful uses and imposes disproportionate burdens on them, is insufficient to establish their standing to challenge the state franchise tax credit.
May 15, 2006

Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Association v. King
Plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a cause of action to compel the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority to take affirmative steps to prevent racial segregation and high concentration of poverty that allegedly have resulted from its administration of a federal low-income housing tax credit program.
Feb. 21, 2006

Solick v. Oregon Department of Revenue
Taxpayer demonstrated that contamination of her home with toxic mold was an event that was not only sudden, but also unusual and unexpected, and her state claim of casualty loss for personal possessions for tax year 2001 is substantiated
March 8, 2004

Re Adoption of the 2003 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan
New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the New Jersey Housing Mortgage Finance Agency's (NJHMFA) adoption of its 2003 qualified allocation plan (QAP) and rejected a claim that it encourages racial segregation
April 28, 2004

Brademas v. Indiana Housing Finance Authority
Action against state housing finance authority alleging that authority had wrongfully denied a number of entities federal tax credits under a low-income housing credit program is barred by statute of limitations
Jan. 12, 2004

Chevron TCI Inc. v. Talleyrand Associates
Court interprets partnership agreement where partnership anticipated obtaining tax credit benefits in form of tax credits due to partnership's ownership of a low-income housing tax credit project
Dec.19, 2003

Rhonda Carter v. Maryland Management Co.
Landlord participating in a federal low-income housing program use Maryland's "tenant holding over" statute to evict tenants
Nov. 10, 2003

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Commissioner
Depreciation--Benefit of Below-Market Financing Can Be Amortizable Intangible Asset
Sept. 29, 2003

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. U.S.
Requirements for rent comparability studies to support owners' requests for Section 8 rent increases constituted a breach of housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts
Sept. 22, 2003

Parkwood Limited Dividend Housing Association v State Housing Development Authority
Dissolution of Limited Dividend Housing Association underHousing Development Authority Act
Sept. 16, 2003

Oti Kaga Inc. v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority
Racial Discrimination Against Native Americans
Sept. 15, 2003

Topa Equities v. City of Los Angeles
LIPPRHA does not preempt HUD subsidized developments that have prepaid Section 236 mortgages from rent control laws
Sept. 8, 2003

Brademas v. Kernan (Indiana Housing Finance Authority)
Denial of low-income homing tax credits/Statute of limitations for personal injury claims
Feb. 27, 2003

Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. City of Cuyahoga Falls
Citizen-led referendum to invalidate already-approved affordable housing property deemed constitutional
March 25, 2003

Oti Kaga Inc. v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority
Racial Discrimination Against Native Americans
Feb. 8, 2002

Eastampton Center LLC v. Pennrose Properties, Inc.
"Inclusionary Development" Policy and Tax Credits
Jan. 15, 2002

Wisconsin v. Board of Review of Beloit
April 27, 2000

New Arena Square North & amp South Ltd. v. Florida Housing Finance Corporation
Completeness of Tax Credit Applications
Dec. 1, 1999

Redlands Surgical Services v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Joint Ventures: For Profit and NonProfit
July 19, 1999

John L. Brassard v. United States of America
Developer Fees-Payment Contingencies
July 29, 1999

Corbin West Tax Court Case

Opinion

Brief for Petitioner

Brief for Respondent

Reply Brief for Petitioner

Reply Brief for Respondent

Seller Carryback Financing and Eligible Basis
January 15, 1999

Williamsburg Gardens v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Developer Fees and Eligible Basis
Dec. 2, 1998

John W. Owen & Glenda P. McCormick v. United States of America
Cash Basis vs. Accrual Accounting-Deductibility of Expenses
Dec. 17, 1998

Arnold R. and Marion R. Blitzer v. United States of America
Placed in Service Test-Certificates of Occupancy-Different Buildings, Different Months
July 14, 1982

Property Tax Assessment Cases

Glenbrook at Oxmoor I, LLC, Alabama Affordable Housing Association v. Magee, Commissioner of the Ala. Dept. of Revenue J, Jefferson County Board of Equalization, Hendricks, Jefferson County Tax Assessor Gaynell, Wilson, Jr., Jefferson County Asst. Tax Assessor
Alabama circuit court ruled against the state department of revenue concerning its policy of disregarding low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) extended-use restrictions when determining assessment of value for property taxes.
Jan. 29, 2020

Heron Lake II Apartments LP et. al. v. Lowndes County Board of Tax Assessors
The Georgia state Surpreme Court reverses a lower-court decision and rules that low-income housing tax credits do not constitute "actual income" while while valuing properties for tax assessment
Sept. 23, 2019

Errol G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans v. Opportunity Homes Limited Partnership and Louisiana Tax Commission
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and reinstated the fair market value for certain affordable housing rental properties for the 2014 and 2015 tax years for purposes  of ad valorem taxation.
May 10, 2017

Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine
The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that the valuation methodologies Racine used for the 2012 and 2013 assessments did not comply with Wisconsin law, and reversed a Court of Appeals decision that had upheld assessments of Section 42 apartment buildings for Wisconsin property tax purposes. The case was remanded to the circuit court to calculate the amount of Regency West's refund. 
Dec. 22, 2016

SAHFNet Google Group on property taxes

Willow Bend Estates, LLC and Woodyard Gardens, LLC v. Humphreys County Board of Supervisors and Margaret Parks, Tax Assessor for Humphreys County, Mississippi
Mississippi Code Section 27-35-50(4)(d) prohibits local governments from including the value of federal tax credits in their valuation of the properties for tax assessment purposes.
Oct. 17, 2013

U.S. Bank National Assocation v. Lewis & Clark Apartments, et al.
Appeals court ruled that low-income housing tax credits do affect the value of a property and should be considred as part of the property's value.
Oct. 11, 2012

Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette City Board of Revision, Ohio
Board of Tax Appeals erred by valuing low-income housing tax credit property without regard to the effect of federally imposed restrictions
Feb. 26, 2009

Brandon Bay Limited Partnership v. Payette County, Idaho
Value of tax credits allocated under the federal low-income housing tax credit program pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §42 should be included in the real property assessment of apartments for taxation purposes.
March 21, 2006

Wilsonville Heights Assoc. Ltd. v. Oregon Department of Revenue
Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the methodology for determining taxable value of interest in federally subsidized and restricted low-income housing property that reduces the market value of comparable unrestricted property by the present value of market rents surrendered by owner is consistent with the statutes and case law
Nov. 3, 2005

Town Square Limited Partnership v. Clay County, S.D., Board of Equalization
South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that under South Dakota law, assessment under the income capitalization method of an apartment building that qualifies under the low-income housing tax credit program requires consideration of both the restricted rents imposed on the rental units as well as the federal tax credits allocated to the property
Sept. 21, 2005

Spring Hill L.P. v. Tennessee Board of Equalization
Property tax assessments should include present value of federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in the valuations of low-income housing properties
Dec. 31, 2003

Appeal of The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. v. Durham County Board of Equalization
Consideration of Section 42 Restrictions in Property Tax Value
Feb. 28, 2003

Maryville Properties, L.P. v. Nelson
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Should Be Excluded in the Valuation of Real Property
March 13, 2002

The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. v. Durham County Board of Equalization
Section 42 Restrictions Should be Considered in Property Tax Value
Nov. 30, 2001

Real Estate Professional

Tom and Nancy Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Taxpayer is a real estate professional under Section 469(c)(7)
Sept. 8, 2011

Yusufu Yerodin Anyika and Ceceila Francis-Anyika, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Taxpayer not a real estate professional under Section 469(c)(7)
March 24, 2011

James F. and Lynn M. Moss, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
“On call” time does not count toward satisfying the 750 hour test
Sept. 20, 2010

Alfredo A. and Jane R. Galager, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Taxpayer did not meet the 750 hour test
March 25, 2004

Karl and Brigit Jahina, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Taxpayer failed half personal services test
Nov. 21, 2002

William C. and Cheryl M. Fowler, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Qualifying as a real estate professional for purposes of Section 469(c)(7).
March 22, 2002

Sidney C. Shaw, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
The government argued that Taxpayer did not establish he was a real estate professional. Court ruled that documentation provided was not reasonable.
Feb. 6, 2002

Bailey v. Commissioner
Taxpayer not a real estate professional under Section 469(c)(7)
Nov. 8, 2001

Danilo DeGuzman and Daisy DeGuzman, Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Defendant
US District Court, NJ found taxpayer did not rise to 750 hour test
May 24, 2001

Osama A. Mowafi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service
Taxpayer not a real estate professional under Section 469(c)(7)
May 10, 2001

Matti Kosonen, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Taxpayer did not file a proper election to group his rentals as a real estate professional.
March 28, 2000

Antonio & Luzviminda Pungot v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Section 469-Active Trade or Business Qualification
Feb. 24, 2000

Nicholas A. and Marjorie E. Paleveda, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Relief provisions for real estate professionals cannot be applied to years prior to 1994
Sept. 18, 1997

Right of First Refusal

SunAmerica Housing Fund 1050 v. Pathway of Pontiac, Inc. et al.
In this case, the right of first refusal was not exercisable because there was no bona fide offer—the solicitation of an offer wasn’t made in good faith. In addition, the common law definition of right of first refusal adopted by this partnership meant that the General Partners needed to have the intent to sell. The General Partners did not truly manifest that intent.
Feb. 4, 2021

Defendant's Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Oct. 10, 2020

Plaintiff's Combined Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Sept. 21, 2020

Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Sept. 1, 2020

Plaintiff's Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
July 29, 2020

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
July 29, 2020

Tenants' Dev. Corp. v. AMTAX Holdings 227 and Alden Torch Financial LLC
ORDER dismissing actions without prejudice. This case concerns a contract dispute regarding a nonprofit's right of first refusal for a LIHTC-eligible property. Parties asserted the issue for the Court was the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 42. The Court found the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 42 to not be "substantial" to the dispute and therefore the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Dec. 23, 2020

Riseboro Community Partnership Inc. v. SunAmerica Housing Fund, SLP Housing I LLC, and 420 Stockholm Street Associates LP (Amicus Brief)
April 14, 2021
The decision below threatens amici’s interests. If for-profit investors who have already obtained tax credits under the LIHTC program may now refuse to transfer their interests to non-profits after year fifteen, the inevitable outcome will be either (a) onerous new transfer costs for non-profit partners, depleting the capital that non-profits need to sustain long-term affordable housing or (b) a conversion of these developments to market rate, putting them beyond the reach of low-income New Yorkers. Both outcomes harm residents of LIHTC-funded projects and undermine the significant investments that the State and City have made in these projects for the purpose of long-term affordability.

Riseboro Community Partnership Inc. v. SunAmerica Housing Fund, SLP Housing I LLC, and 420 Stockholm Street Associates LP
ORDER in favor of defendants. The Court found that the right of first refusal (ROFR) granted in the partnership agreement operates by the New York common law definition of a ROFR, and was not an option.
Sept. 1, 2020

Senior Housing Assistance Group v. Amtax Holdings 260 LLC, et al.; Amtax Holdings 260 LLC, et al. v. Senior Housing Assistance Group (Motions for Summary Judgment)
ORDER denying motions for summary judgment. With respect to a nonprofit affordable housing provider's right of first refusal (ROFR), the court found parties' intent unclear in the LIHTC partnership agreement as to whether the ROFR was meant to conform with the ordinary meaning. To determine this and whether or not bona fide offers for purchase of the property was received, the Court needs to act as a fact finder.
Feb. 19, 2019

Senior Housing Assistance Group v. Amtax Holdings 260 LLC, et al.; Amtax Holdings 260 LLC, et al. v. Senior Housing Assistance Group (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law)
Judgment in favor of the AMTAX entities. 
March 29, 2019

Homeowner's Rehab Inc. v. Related Corporate V SLP LP
ORDER affirming NY Superior Court's order granting motion for summary judgment.
June 15, 2018

Amicus Brief of Holland & Hart LLP
Sept. 27, 2017

Amicus Brief of Bradley Myers
Sept. 27, 2017

Homeowner's Rehab Inc. and Memorial Drive Housing Inc. v. Related Corporate V SLP LP and Centerline Corporate Partners V LP
ORDER granting summary judgment. The Court found that the LIHTC partnership GP was permitted to solicit a third party offer and issue a disposition notice without the special limited partner's consent. To trigger the nonprofit's right of first refusal contained in the LIHTC partnership agreement, the partnership needed to receive a third party's enforceable offer to purchase the property interest, but special limited partner consent was not needed.
September 16, 2016

 

ALL MATERIAL ON THIS PAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON OR CONSTRUED AS PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OFFERED BY NOVOGRADAC.
ANY ADVICE AND INTERPRETATION REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM YOUR RETAINED TAX AND/OR LEGAL ADVISORS.