Low Income Housing Tax Credit USA
Introduction:
The GAO identified wide variation in development costs and several cost drivers for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects completed in 2011–2015. Across 12 selected allocating agencies, median per-unit costs for new construction projects ranged from about $126,000 (Texas) to about $326,000 (California). Within individual allocating agencies, the variation in per-unit cost between the least and most expensive projects ranged from as little as $104,000 per unit (Georgia) to as much as $606,000 per unit (California). After controlling for other characteristics. The GAO estimates that larger projects (more than 100 units) cost about $85,000 less per unit than smaller projects (fewer than 37 units), consistent with economies of scale. The projects in urban areas cost about $13,000 more per unit than projects in nonurban areas. The projects for senior tenants nearly one-third of all projects—cost about $7,000 less per unit than those for other tenants, potentially due to smaller unit sizes.
Allocating agencies use measures such as cost and fee limits to oversee LIHTC development costs, but few agencies have requirements to help guard against misrepresentation of contractor costs (a known fraud risk). LIHTC program policies, while requiring high-level cost certifications from developers, do not directly address this risk because the certifications aggregate costs from multiple contractors. Some allocating agencies require detailed cost certifications from contractors, but many do not. Because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not require such certifications for LIHTC projects, the vulnerability of the LIHTC program to this fraud risk is heightened.
Development Costs and Their Variability
Between 2011 and 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) collected and analyzed data from 12 credit allocating agencies covering roughly half of all tax credit allocations in 2015. The analysis of 1,849 projects revealed substantial variability in development costs. For new construction, median per-unit costs ranged from $126,000 in Texas to $326,000 in California. Rehabilitation projects also showed variation, albeit less extreme.
Several cost drivers were identified:
-
Economies of scale: Larger projects (over 100 units) cost $85,000 less per unit than smaller ones (under 37 units).
-
Urban vs. nonurban: Projects in urban areas were about $13,000 more expensive per unit.
-
Tenant type: Housing for seniors typically cost $7,000 less per unit, often due to smaller unit sizes.
Soft costs (developer fees, legal fees, etc.) made up about 30% of total development expenses. However, these proportions varied widely by state and type of project. In California, for instance, high land prices significantly increased overall project costs.
Oversight and Weaknesses in Fraud Management
The GAO identified serious oversight shortcomings. While some states imposed cost and fee limits to manage expenditures, most lacked mechanisms to detect fraud effectively—particularly fraud involving contractors inflating expenses. The current LIHTC structure aggregates contractor costs under developer certifications, making it difficult to verify authenticity or detect misrepresentation.
Only a few agencies required separate cost certifications from contractors, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which oversees the federal component, did not mandate such disclosures. This structural weakness significantly raises the fraud risk within Low Income Housing development.
IRS oversight is limited and has historically been criticized for minimal engagement. Allocating agencies are left to self-regulate and interpret federal rules, which leads to inconsistencies across states. These inconsistencies not only increase fraud risk but also hinder accurate comparisons of project efficiency.
Data Deficiencies and Lack of Standardization
A major theme in the report is the fragmented and inconsistent data landscape across allocating agencies. Cost-related data is often stored in incompatible formats with varying definitions, making aggregation and analysis difficult. Moreover, syndicator fees—key indirect costs in Low Income Housing development—are not comprehensively recorded.
HUD collects tenant demographic data but is not responsible for financial oversight, while the IRS focuses narrowly on tax compliance. This fragmented administrative structure means that no single federal body has the mandate or capacity to collect, maintain, and analyze cost-related LIHTC data. This gap undermines efforts to evaluate the program’s efficiency and effectiveness.
The GAO emphasized that standardizing data collection and requiring more granular financial reporting could help address these issues. For instance, making contractor-level cost certifications mandatory would increase transparency and facilitate fraud detection. Additionally, collecting uniform cost categories across states would allow for meaningful benchmarking and policy improvement.
Project Characteristics and Their Impact on Costs
Projects differed not only in size and location but also in design and intended tenant population. Senior housing, for example, tends to involve smaller units, contributing to lower development costs. Projects targeting exclusively low-income households—rather than mixed-income populations—were actually more expensive, partly due to needing more equity through tax credits.
Other key findings include:
-
Projects involving nonprofit developers were more expensive by around $15,000 per unit.
-
Larger buildings with 60 or more units incurred additional costs due to code requirements like elevators and sprinkler systems.
-
Urban infill developments and those in historic districts or on contaminated sites often required extensive demolition and remediation, increasing costs.
Despite these cost pressures, projects generally adhered to the 30-year affordability requirement mandated by the program. Units had to be reserved for tenants earning less than 60% of the area’s median gross income.
Investor Structure and Financing Mechanisms
The financing of Low Income Housing through the LIHTC is complex. Developers do not directly receive federal funds; instead, they sell the tax credits to investors, usually banks and large institutions. Investors either invest directly or through syndicators, who pool funds and place them into multiple housing developments.
The investor receives federal tax credits for ten years in exchange for upfront equity contributions, which reduces the need for debt financing. This structure supports affordable rent levels, which are essential for Low Income Housing projects.
Syndicators receive fees (often termed acquisition or syndication fees) for their services, and these fees are paid by the project or deducted from the equity investment. These fees are often not fully documented, making it difficult to evaluate their impact on overall project cost.
During economic downturns, such as the 2007–2009 financial crisis, demand for tax credits fell. Congress intervened through legislation like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stabilize the Low Income Housing market and keep projects moving forward.
Policy Recommendations
The GAO made several key recommendations to improve the LIHTC program and reduce vulnerabilities:
-
Congressional Oversight: Congress should designate a federal agency—such as the IRS or HUD—to maintain a central database of cost data, enabling comprehensive oversight.
-
IRS Action: The IRS should require:
-
Allocating agencies to collect more detailed cost information.
-
Standardized reporting formats to enable comparative assessments.
-
Contractor-level certifications to reduce fraud risks.
-
-
Data Standardization: Standardizing cost categories and definitions across states would enhance the federal government’s ability to assess project efficiency.
While the IRS disagreed with some recommendations, arguing that it lacks the authority to mandate certain data collection practices, the GAO maintained that enhanced oversight is essential for ensuring taxpayer funds are used effectively.
Conclusion
The LIHTC program is a vital instrument for supporting Low Income Housing, but it faces notable challenges in cost efficiency and fraud prevention. Discrepancies in development costs across states, combined with weak data systems and inconsistent oversight, pose serious concerns. The absence of a central federal authority to analyze and compare project data further hampers improvement.
To enhance the performance of the LIHTC program and ensure it delivers value, especially in producing quality Low Income Housing, systemic reforms are required. These include stronger federal oversight, better data collection practices, mandatory contractor certifications, and increased transparency in fee structures.
In conclusion, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit remains an essential policy tool. However, for it to fully serve its purpose—ensuring access to affordable and safe housing—governments at all levels must address its structural and operational deficiencies. The future success of Low Income Housing programs depends on the efficiency, integrity, and accountability of the mechanisms used to support them.