Data status
What the atlas covers, how old the source behind each answer is, and what to refresh next. Every rule traces to a dated document, so staleness is a queryable property here, not a guess.
Refresh next
Ranked by how overdue, then by age.
| Source | Where | Status | Supersession | Age | Rules | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Tax Law § 18, Low-income housing credit (the SLIHC recapture provision) | ny | unreachable | low | 8.3y | 2 | Public Housing Law § 24 states that the state credit 'may be recaptured as provided in section eighteen of the tax law' and stops there, so the entire SLIHC recapture regime lives in this section. Read 2026-08-29 it supplies: the trigger, a qualified-basis decrease measured at the close of a taxable year in the compliance period against the close of the preceding year (b)(1); the recapture amount as the accelerated portion of prior-year credit plus interest at the overpayment rate under Tax Law § 1096 (b)(2), which is a state interest charge with no federal counterpart in the section 42(j) computation; the accelerated portion defined against a fifteen-year ratable baseline (b)(3); an importation of the section 42(j)(4)(B) and (C) special rules (b)(4) and the 42(j)(5) thirty-five-or-more-partner election (b)(6); three exceptions at (b)(5) for a casualty loss restored within a reasonable period, a de minimis change in low-income floor space, and a de minimis error in complying with the low-income eligibility tests, each turning on a determination by the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance in consultation with the Commissioner of Homes and Community Renewal rather than by the IRS; (b)(6-a), which leaves the original taxpayer 'solely liable' for the credit's obligations after a transfer; and (b)(7), the disposition safe harbour and a three-year statute of limitations running from notice to HCR. Also confirms at (a) that the credit is claimed on an eligibility statement issued by the housing commissioner, not on a federal form. |
| Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 330, Chapter 36 - Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program (OHFA Chapter 36 Rules) | ok | unreachable | medium | 5.7y | 7 | OHFA's own published printing of the same rules, used to cross-check the section text quoted in the rules below, is 'Chapter 36 Draft Permanent Rules Effective 1.1.2023' at https://www.ohfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Attachment-Chapter-36-Draft-Permanent-Rules-Effective-1.1.2023.docx (102,902 bytes, sha256 3a86aad03d4d2fb8514ffe9fd0b1c78e43b10bc886d421a6fd36a745daaa31dd, fetched 2026-08-24). Its 330:36-4-3 fee schedule and 330:36-6-7(e) correction period match the current OAC text on okrules.elaws.us word for word. An older OHFA printing (https://www.ohfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Rules-Chapter36-TaxCredits.pdf, header 'Effective January 1, 201821') is a redline whose struck and inserted figures both survive as plain text after PDF extraction (e.g. '$240.00 $315.00', 'forty-five (45)thirty (30)') and must NOT be read as the operative rule; it was used only to locate section numbers. Confirmed reachable 2026-08-27 despite the archiver reporting it unreachable: plain curl with a standard browser User-Agent. The URL is correct; the fetch was being blocked. Archiver's timeout was transient -- the page loads in about a second. Keep the URL. One optional improvement for whoever applies these: the identical page also serves over HTTPS at https://okrules.elaws.us/oac/title330_chapter36 (200, 147,050 bytes), and upgrading the scheme would remove a plaintext-HTTP citation from the corpus. Same host, same path, same content -- but I have left proposed_url null since the instruction for this outcome is to keep the URL, and this is a judgement call for a human. The record's access_notes about section-level ?id= permalinks (78943 / 78969 current, 33682 / 33710 superseded) still apply and were not re-verified this pass. |
| South Carolina Code section 12-6-3795, South Carolina housing tax credit | sc | unreachable | medium | 4.3y | 5 | Read 2026-08-29. Cited for (A)(4), the state's own "project" definition reciting the pre-2018 federal 40-60 and 20-50 set-asides and omitting the average income test -- recorded with an open question rather than resolved; (A)(5), defining a qualified project as a section 42 qualified low-income building approved by SC Housing; (B)(1), the placed-in-service window running from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2030 with the credit capped at the federal credit; (B)(2)(a)-(b), recapture proportional to federal recapture and the return content required to report it; (B)(4), allocation of the credit AND of any recaptured credit among partners in any manner agreed regardless of the federal allocation; (B)(5)(a), the supplement-not-supplant limit; and (C)(1)-(2), the eligibility statement and the tenant-benefit report that gates its issuance. RECORDED ABSENCE: a full-text search of the section returned no occurrence of transfer, assign, sell, sold or sale -- on the text as read this is not a certificated transferable credit. |
| CNMI Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program 2023-2024 Qualified Allocation Plan (NMHC) | mp | unreachable | high | 3.7y | 21 | 23 numbered pages, 428,095 bytes, sha256 b76bbb2627fd0c614ab2c8c88c543d00e13c258a1b7fa88361a5a11cc3f1ac6a. The most recent FINAL-form QAP NMHC serves (linked from nmhcgov.net/allocation-plan-2023-2024-cnmi-lihtc-qap/); its successor, the 2025-2026 QAP, is watermarked DRAFT on every page even though the 2025 application cycle ran under it - see src.mp.nmhc_qap_2025_2026_draft. No adoption date is printed anywhere in the document; the 'published' date above is the plan's own first effective year, not a verified adoption date, and the wp-content upload path (2025/01) is a posting date. NMHC publishes NO standalone compliance manual: Section V 'Compliance Monitoring Plan' (pp. 11-19) is the whole published monitoring regime, near-verbatim to GHURA's - same February 1 annual report, triennial 20% audit, 30-day correction period - with the CNMI-specific fee schedule at sec. V.9 (application fee $2,500; good faith deposit 5% with 75% retained at 8609; monitoring fee up to $200/unit; qualified contract fee $150/unit; reallocation fee $500 with a two-year reallocation limit; Transfer of Credit Fee of 50% of proceeds; all fees non-refundable, by cashier's check). Every provision cited by the mp rules was read in both this edition and the 2025-2026 draft and is verbatim-identical across the two. |
| 775 ILCS 5/3-102 (Illinois Human Rights Act; civil rights violations, real estate transactions) | il | unreachable | medium | 2.7y | 1 | Illinois names source of income, immigration status and arrest record alongside the unlawful discrimination classes defined at 775 ILCS 5/1-103. |
| VHFA Tenant Income Certification (2024), with five pages of completion instructions | vt | unreachable | medium | 2.7y | 3 | 7 pages, 308,227 bytes, sha256 6a8bef7629ad4bca0d9b943d33d9496d8c1f3598bc8801d318b09407acc10386. Fetched 2026-08-28 by curl -sL with a desktop Chrome User-Agent (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126 Safari/537.36). HTTP 200 first attempt, no bot wall. THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ADDED IN THIS BATCH. The 2019 compliance manual says 'A standardized form is required for the LIHTC program', and this is that form. Its face carries no month, only '(2024)', so the published date is the first day of the printed year and no month is invented. WHY IT MATTERS: Parts IVA and IVB run HOTMA's asset regime in full - Non-necessary Personal Property, Real Property, a Federal Tax Refund or Credit received within a year entered as a NEGATIVE value in net cash value, and imputation at the current HUD-published passbook savings rate - while the governing manual is September 2019 and pre-HOTMA. The word HOTMA, and any citation to 24 CFR 5.603, 5.609 or HUD Notice H 2023-10, appear nowhere on the form or in its instructions. IT PUBLISHES NO DOLLAR FIGURE: every reference is to 'the Imputed Income Limitation as adjusted', and the Part IVA instruction pushes the number onto a document VHFA does not publish - 'From the ASSET SELF-CERTIFICATION WORKSHEET, enter value from either Part I, Line 7 OR Part II, Line 13'. Those line numbers match South Dakota's published Asset Self-Certification Worksheet exactly; the two states use the same 2024 model form suite. Also cited for the Part I effective-date table (new move-in, acquisition/rehab within 120 days, resyndication grandfathering, recertification anniversary, transfer), for Part VI's over-income arithmetic (Designated Income Limit x 140%, 170% deep rent skewed, with 60% substituted for every Average Income unit designated at 60% or lower), and for the five-day pre-effective-date signature recommendation. |
| O.C.G.A. section 48-7-29.6, Georgia housing tax credit (secondary capture; the official code is not publicly fetchable) | ga | unreachable | high | 2.4y | 3 | Read in full 2026-08-29. Cited for (a)(3), the state's own "Project" definition reciting the 40-60 and 20-50 tests and omitting the average income test -- the same drafting artefact as South Carolina's; (a)(5), defining a qualified Georgia project as a section 42 qualified low-income building, which is the piggyback hook; (b)(1), capping the Georgia income-tax credit combined with the O.C.G.A. 33-1-18 insurance-premium credit at the federal credit allowed for the project; (b)(2)(A), recapture proportional to federal recapture arising from a REDUCTION IN QUALIFIED BASIS, with an express carve-out for recapture due solely to sale or transfer of a direct or indirect interest; (b)(2)(B), the amended-return content required to report it; (b)(3), a three-year carryforward with no carryback; and (b)(4), allocation of the credit and of any recaptured credit among partners in any manner agreed regardless of the federal allocation. |
| WSHFC Tax Credit Compliance Procedures Manual — Chapter 3, Washington State Requirements | wa | unreachable | medium | 1.8y | 6 | Confirmed reachable 2026-08-22 (10-page chapter PDF, downloaded and hashed directly). Chapters are versioned/published separately by WSHFC; this is chapter 3 of a 12-chapter manual, not the whole manual. |
| WSHFC Tax Credit Compliance Procedures Manual — Chapter 2, Federal Requirements | wa | unreachable | medium | 1.8y | 2 | 342,099 bytes, sha256 7e55258a5394faae7400affcdf7e0a25d798937d239f73d64bc851a0d31b2b55, 20 pages. DATING: the filename contains 'Dec2024' and the URL was NOT used to date this document. Every page footer reads 'Rev. December 2024'; the day is not printed and 2024-12-01 is the corpus convention for a month-only revision, matching src.wa.tax_credit_manual_ch3. WSHFC versions each chapter of this manual separately and the index page carries no dates, so a chapter's date must be read from that chapter's own footer -- chapter 12, served from the same current index with no date in its filename, footers 'Rev. June 2010tonbar'. Chapter 2 carries the student rule, the vacant unit rule, the available unit rule, common area units and the utility allowance 90-day rule. |
| WSHFC Tax Credit Compliance Procedures Manual — Chapter 4, Rents & Tenancy Issues | wa | unreachable | medium | 1.8y | 3 | 256,687 bytes, sha256 d0483a0c95feabf46ac9f8f1e3a323750ff7b804b9dbd3b89bd9c579931df2a1, 6 pages. DATING: from the page footers, 'Rev. December 2024', not from the filename. Short chapter but carries the whole of WSHFC's household-composition policy -- the six-month bar on adult additions, the original-member rule, live-in aides and the confidential-medical-records limit, anticipated children, and the domestic-violence transfer right -- which is why it is cited here more than its length suggests. |
| WSHFC Tax Credit Compliance Procedures Manual — Chapter 5, Income & Asset Certification | wa | unreachable | high | 1.8y | 8 | 397,612 bytes, sha256 cebd20dbebe70b83ae91d577ad275c905e05eca693a54308bb62d8e29895be06, 25 pages. DATING: page footers read 'Rev December 2024' -- without the full stop after 'Rev' that chapters 2, 3 and 4 use. The date is read from the footer, not the filename. THE Washington eligibility source: the five-level verification hierarchy with EIV deleted, the 120-day currency rule, the two-paystub minimum, wage annualisation and the abolition of year-to-date, the $50,000 net-family-asset matrix, trusts, retirement accounts, real property, and the express statement that HOTMA's $100,000 asset ceiling does not reach LIHTC. |
| WSHFC Tax Credit Compliance Frequently Asked Questions (Manual Appendix B) | wa | unreachable | high | 1.8y | 11 | 428,049 bytes, sha256 29a1c24b7a101e12ef7bb5746fe791fb4a7c31ae0bc8e490152e432125946021, 33 pages. DATING: the cover line reads 'Latest Revision Date: December 2024' and every page footer reads 'Rev. December 2024'. AUTHORITY WEIGHT is deliberately persuasive rather than binding: the document's own preamble says 'These FAQs are based on WSHFC staff interpretations or understanding of IRS rules and guidance for the LIHTC program' and directs owners to their tax credit counsel. It is nonetheless the ONLY source for several operative Washington positions -- the anticipated Social Security protocol, the BAH county map, the crowdfunding treatment, the Estrangement Certification, the HEN and DSHS diaper-payment answers -- none of which appears in the manual chapters. |
| CNMI Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program 2025-2026 Qualified Allocation Plan (draft as served; 2025 cycle public notice attached) | mp | unreachable | high | 1.7y | 8 | 24 PDF pages (public-notice cover + 23 numbered), 655,084 bytes, sha256 6f69cea9a56160e1d1ad7b601e31ab5cb6d1ec0de9aefb50f0560910f143cc3f. THE ONLY 2025-2026 EDITION NMHC SERVES IS WATERMARKED DRAFT, yet the attached Notice to the Public ran the real 2025 cycle: NMHC 'is the agency authorized to allocate $3,455,000 of Low Incoming Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in the CNMI', applications due 4:30 pm August 29, 2025 with a $2,500 fee, 14-day deficiency-cure window, Nov/Dec 2025 board awards, and 'There are no changes from the previous QAP.' No final-stamped 2025-2026 edition was located on nmhcgov.net on 2026-08-25 (the LIHTC page and the public-notice page both link this file). Cited only as corroboration that the 2023-2024 final's compliance plan remains NMHC's current text - every provision encoded in the mp rules is verbatim-identical across the two editions, including the Additional Use Period recertification sentence whose wording conflicts with its Guam twin. |
| ADOH LIHTC Compliance Manual (2025 Edition) | az | unreachable | high | 1.1y | 7 | Confirmed reachable 2026-08-22 via a JS-executing browser session (housing.az.gov serves every file behind a Cloudflare managed challenge that returns 403 to curl and WebFetch; a real browser session passed the challenge, then an in-page fetch() with credentials pulled the PDF bytes directly). 95 pages, 4,641,605 bytes, downloaded and hashed (sha256 da5d5bf4c96630baf383e8c3503a504f45054e5d49fa30fa12e1e4508fc05ceb). PDF metadata: created 2025-08-05, modified 2025-08-06 (Adobe Acrobat Distiller). This pass reads Sections 2.3, 2.5.2-2.6, 3.13.4-3.13.7, 3.15, and 4.17 only, not the full 95-page manual. Confirmed reachable 2026-08-27 despite the archiver reporting it unreachable: NOT REACHED THIS PASS. See notes.. The URL is correct; the fetch was being blocked. THIS IS THE ONE DOCUMENT IN THE BATCH I COULD NOT OPEN, AND THE EDITION IS THEREFORE UNVERIFIED AS OF 2026-08-27. housing.az.gov is behind a host-wide Cloudflare wall that has escalated since the 2026-08-22 authoring run: what was then a managed challenge a browser session passed automatically now renders an INTERACTIVE Cloudflare Turnstile "Verify you are human" checkbox. I drove a real browser to both the file URL and the ADOH resource page, waited through multiple 10-second holds, and the checkbox persisted. I did not click it -- completing a bot-detection challenge is out of bounds for me -- so a human needs to finish this one. Evidence bearing on whether the file is still there, none of it conclusive: (1) the 403 is a bot wall, not a 404 -- I probed a deliberately nonexistent path (.../2025-08/THIS-FILE-DOES-NOT-EXIST-xyz.pdf) and it returned the SAME 403 challenge, so the status code carries no information about existence either way; (2) ADOH maintains a resource page for this document at https://housing.az.gov/resources/lihtc-compliance-manual and search engines still index the 2025 PDF at the recorded path; (3) no evidence anywhere of a 2026 edition of the manual -- ADOH has issued 2026 income/rent limits but the manual itself still surfaces as the 2025 edition; (4) the Wayback Machine has NO capture of this file (Cloudflare blocks its crawler too), so there is no archival copy to verify the edition from; (5) the Novogradac mirror at https://www.novoco.com/public-media/documents/arizona-lihtc-compliance-manual-2025.pdf also returns 403 to automated fetch. Recommended human action: open the URL in a normal browser, clear the Turnstile, and confirm the file still hashes to the recorded sha256 da5d5bf4c96630baf383e8c3503a504f45054e5d49fa30fa12e1e4508fc05ceb before treating the 7 citing rules as URL-verified. Do NOT repoint this URL on my say-so. UNREACHABLE AS OF 2026-09-05, verified two ways before being written down: scripts/acquire.py got the Cloudflare interstitial ('just a moment' — the wall, not the page), and a real browser session held on the same interstitial after an 8-second wait. No attempt was made to get past it. The document was readable when the seven Arizona rules were authored from it and nothing suggests the text has changed; what has changed is that this corpus can no longer re-verify it on a schedule. Treat the seven az.lihtc.* rules as resting on a source whose currency cannot presently be confirmed. |
| New York Public Housing Law Article 2-A, New York State Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (sections 21-25) | ny | unreachable | medium | 0.4y | 8 | The whole of the New York State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (SLIHC) is here. Read in full 2026-08-29. The provisions the corpus cites: § 21(2) defines the compliance period as fifteen taxable years, the same as federal; § 21(4) defines the eligibility statement and requires it after the close of the first credit-period year and thereafter each year of the compliance period; § 21(5)(b) substitutes a 40-90 test for the federal 40-60 test, which is the single most consequential difference between SLIHC and section 42 and makes the STATE credit shallower, not deeper; § 21(6) computes qualified basis on that 40-90 test; § 22(6) conditions each year's credit on an extended low-income housing commitment being in effect at year end; § 22(7) passes the credit to a successor owner on sale, allocated by days; § 22(8) creates a transfer market for the credit itself, with a mandatory transfer contract, a transfer statement filed with and approved by the commissioner before the transfer, and a bar on re-transfer by the transferee; § 23 delegates monitoring procedure to the commissioner; § 24 states recapture on a qualified-basis decrease and refers the mechanics to Tax Law § 18; § 25(2) imports section 42 except where Article 2-A is inconsistent, and § 25(3) permits the state allocation to be made 'without regard to and in a separate manner from' any federal allocation. § 22(4) carries four dated statewide caps: $217M until 1 April 2027, $247M to 1 April 2028, $277M to 1 April 2029, $307M thereafter. |
Superseded, and still published
Documents an agency has replaced but still serves. Nothing here is cited by any rule. They are listed because a search engine or a third-party mirror can return them ahead of the current edition, and their requirements differ.
RECORDED AS A TRAP, NOT AS AUTHORITY. Nothing in the AHCD corpus cites this document. It is listed here because ADFA still serves it from the same tax-credit document-library page as the current 2026 manual (re-uploaded under a /2024/12/ path in December 2024, which makes it look recent), and because it is the edition mirrored by Novogradac (novoco.com/public-media/documents/arkansas_14.pdf) and echoed in the Arkansas Secretary of State rules register (109.04.12-002, 109.04.11-001), so it is what a search-first workflow is most likely to land on. Three of its figures are materially wrong against the 2026 manual and would produce incorrect findings: it states a maximum 60-day correction period (2026: 30 days), a Tier-1 monitoring fee of 8% of the annual credit allocation (2026 manual and 2026 QAP: 10%), and UPCS and/or ADFA-approved design standards as the physical inspection standard (2026: NSPIRE). It also predates the ADFA Property Management Portal / MITAS regime entirely, describing a paper 'Administrative File/Binder' that the 2026 manual expressly replaces.
REGISTERED SO THAT A READER WHO MEETS IT CAN IDENTIFY IT AS STALE; CITED BY NO RULE. Superseded by the Administrative Policy Guidelines adopted 18 March 2025, and yet still linked from the County's own ADU/WDU developer resources page immediately alongside the current edition, under the label '2021 Countywide and Tysons Urban Center Workforce Dwelling Unit Administrative Policy Guidelines'. The County also still serves the 2007 Countywide and 2010 Tysons editions from the same page. THREE SUPERSEDED EDITIONS AND THE CURRENT ONE ARE ALL PUBLISHED SIDE BY SIDE, and search engines will surface any of them. The 2021 edition's rent example is built on a $126,000 AMI and its rent table tops out at 80 percent of AMI, so its figures are visibly stale, but its structural provisions read very like the 2025 edition's and are easy to mistake for current. NOTE THE COMPLICATION THAT MAKES THIS MORE THAN AN ARCHIVING PROBLEM: under the 2025 edition's Opt-In provision a development proffered under an earlier edition remains administered under THAT edition unless the owner opts in, so a superseded edition can still be the operative document for a specific property.
76 pages, 809,919 bytes, sha256 df084c92f93d993b8b6bf88bbc1336be2890ddbf628390ed107d7d170a2f1524. SUPERSEDED by the 2025-2026 edition (August 2025) but still live at its original path on 2026-08-25 (HTTP 200) and ranked ABOVE the current edition in web search; the 2019 edition is also still served. Recorded per the standing convention as a source cited by nothing, so the status page can carve it out of the refresh queue. The material difference from the current edition: this one inspects to UPCS (sec. 5.T) where the 2025-2026 edition elects NSPIRE with the 24-hour life-threatening cure. An overlay built from the search-first hit would encode the wrong inspection standard.
THIS RECORD REPLACES THE EXISTING src.ma.boston.article_79 ENTRY IN data/sources/sources.json IN FULL. It is written here rather than edited in place because agents do not touch the shared sources file; the integrator must overwrite the existing entry, not append this one, and scripts/integrate_pending.py will NOT do that -- it skips ids already present. WHAT CHANGED IN THIS RECORD, 2026-08-31. authority_weight demoted from 'regulation' to 'secondary' and kind from 'regulation' to 'other': this document is a pre-adoption draft, not enacted law, and weighting it as a regulation overstated it. 'superseded' set to 2023-11-30, the date the Zoning Commission adopted Article 79 as Text Amd. No. 466. 'effective' set to null: the draft never took effect; Article 79 did, on 1 October 2024. The access_notes claim that the codified text could not be fetched is corrected. CITED BY NOTHING as of 2026-08-31. All fourteen Boston rules were re-pointed at the codified article. Kept rather than deleted because the document is still served at a live BPDA url, still ranks in search, and is what somebody meeting an older internal memo will find. WHERE IT DIFFERS FROM THE ENACTED ARTICLE, established by direct comparison on 2026-08-31: 79-6 says 'for a period of AT LEAST thirty (30) years' where the code says 'for a period of thirty (30) years'; 79-8 says the first 50 percent is due 'at the issuance of a building permit' where the code says 'a FULL building permit'; 79-9 strikes 'Covered Project' and inserts nothing, leaving 'any for which an application ... has been filed', where the code reads 'any development with a residential component'. Everything else is wording. See src.ma.boston.article_79_codified for the full diff. THE MOST EXPENSIVE THING THIS DOCUMENT DID was not a difference from the code but a misreading of the redline itself: four rules recorded 'drafting defects' in Table A -- an 18 percent square-footage floor inside a 20 percent requirement -- from provisos that are struck through on the page. Removed text read as enacted text. The codified table has no such provisos. 8 pages, 214,709 bytes. Dates off the document's own face: the effective date is stated in 79-9; the November 8, 2023 adoption date is boston.gov's own label for this file; the PDF's authoring timestamp is 2023-10-26.
Confirmed reachable 2026-08-22 (230-page manual, downloaded directly from chfainfo.com and hashed). This pass reads Chapters 2, 4 and 7 only (energy reporting, vacant unit rule area, and recertification/transfers) — not the full manual. EDITION DRIFT, found 2026-08-28. This record described a '2024' / 230-page manual. The recorded url is a CHFA GUID (b3cb1898-...) that serves the edition, not a fixed file, and it now returns a 239-page PDF whose cover reads 'May 2026 / 05/26.v5' with a HOTMA chapter -- 2,637,454 bytes, sha256 4eaf01c50c1380f86ae838fb23e8e75a613852fa26bba32f4f8d0ca0089947ef, confirmed by direct fetch. CHFA also serves a separate 'Pre-HOTMA' manual at a different GUID, 184pp dated October 2022, so the 2024 edition is not available anywhere found. THE ARCHIVER DID NOT MISS THIS: its first hash of this source, taken 2026-08-23, is already 4eaf01c5... -- the May 2026 edition. The hash was correct from the start; the human-readable version and page count were wrong and nothing compares those two. The four co.json rules citing this record use page-number locators and carry NO quotes. Their sections were re-located in the served edition and are within a few pages of the cited ranges (7.4 at p.130 vs 130-133; 7.6 at p.136 vs 135-137; Energy Use at p.20 vs p.19), so they remain usable -- but with no quotes there is no way to confirm their SUBSTANCE survived the edition change, only their headings. Those four should be re-read against src.co.chfa_manual_2026_05 and given quotes.
Retained because 20 December 2024 is a live cutoff in the current rules -- the 40-year rental and 30-year ownership control periods attach to units created on or after that date, prior round units created before it stay on their own instruments, and 5:80-26.17(b)1 freezes 24 CFR 5.609 at its text 'as it was in effect on December 20, 2024'. A reader reconstructing what changed on that date needs this document; a reader asking what the rule says today must not use it.
60,376 bytes, sha256 92cc10e5ff6a9ea56c924eb7c26ef020fbfd9728443b7d649b189b487e5c2128. Fetched with plain curl and a standard browser User-Agent; no bot wall. The chapter is now a one-page stub whose entire text is: 'CHAPTER 12 / LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS / Rescinded ARC 8902C, IAB 2/19/25, effective 3/26/25.' Cited for exactly that proposition and no more. Its significance for the Iowa overlay is structural: earlier printings of this chapter incorporated the IFA compliance manual by reference and gave the program an administrative-rule layer; after 3/26/25 there is none, so the QAP and the compliance manual are the state-law instruments. ARC 8902C's explanatory text (rules.iowa.gov/Notice/Details/8902C, read but not separately hashed or added as a source this pass) states the reason: under 2024 Iowa Acts, Senate File 2387, the Authority is no longer required to adopt rules for the low-income housing tax credit, and the program is administered through the qualified allocation plan adopted under IRC Section 42. The same ARC rescinded six other IFA chapters (20, 22, 23, 31, 36, 40).
RECORDED AS A SUPERSEDED SOURCE THAT IS STILL CITED, BECAUSE THE FIGURE IT CARRIES IS THE ANSWER TO A POINT-IN-TIME QUESTION. Its Exhibit A states of the Dallas Housing Finance Corporation that 'Fifty-one percent of the units must be set aside for affordable housing.' Nine weeks later, Resolution No. 26-0742 of 22 April 2026 replaced that with 'at least ninety percent of the units must be set aside for persons of low- and moderate-income affordable housing' for LIHTC and non-LIHTC properties alike. A DHFC development approved on or before 21 April 2026 was approved against 51 percent, and this is the instrument that says so. The resolution's own operative sections did NOT touch the corporation statements -- SECTION 1 amends only the Dallas Homebuyer Assistance Program, and the DHFC and DPFC amendments were deferred from that meeting to 22 April -- so the 51 percent text is the pre-existing Catalog language carried forward, not something adopted that day. Its recitals are the primary source for the repeal of DHP33 on 10 December 2025 by Resolution No. 25-1895, the adoption of the Drivers of Opportunity Policy Framework by Resolution No. 25-1836, and the creation of OHCE on 1 October 2025.
Superseded by Ord. 25-114 on 12 November 2025 and again in form by Ord. 26-023 on 6 May 2026. Kept out of the refresh queue by the superseded date. Article I of Chapter 188 (Secs. 188-1 to 188-6, housing-accommodation listing licences, adopted 1986) is untouched by any of this and is not part of the affordable housing regime.
The Live Local Act as originally enacted. Load-bearing differences from the current text, all confirmed by diff in the same session: subsection (4) does not exist; (3)(b) has no area-of-critical-state-concern ten-unit alternative; (3)(a)2. measures the five-year 'newly constructed' window from the first submission of a request for certification OR an application for exemption, 'whichever is earlier', where the current text measures from the certification request alone; (3)(d) is phrased as an entitlement of qualified property rather than as a direction to the property appraiser and carries no proportionate-common-area paragraph; (3)(g) says a determination is not 'final agency action' without the current addition that it is also not a grant of an exemption; the ten-year lookback sits at (3)(j) rather than (3)(i); there is no transient-public-lodging exclusion and no (3)(o) taxing-authority opt-out. Cited by this corpus for point-in-time questions about the 2024 tax roll, which is the first roll subsection (3) applied to.
The edition that first carries subsection (4) -- the exemption for a multifamily project subject to a 99-year recorded land use restriction agreement, exempt from the January 1 assessment immediately succeeding placement in service, with a penalty for early exit equal to 100 percent of the amount financed multiplied by each year remaining -- created by ch. 2024-158 and stated to first apply to the 2026 tax roll. It also first carries the area-of-critical-state-concern ten-unit alternative at (3)(b)2.b., the proportionate-common-area paragraph at (3)(d)2., the transient-public-lodging exclusion, and the (3)(o) taxing-authority opt-out beginning with the 2025 tax roll. In the 2025 edition ch. 2025-208 adds a housing finance authority under part IV of chapter 159 as an alternative counterparty to the subsection (4) agreement.
The Live Local Act land use preemption as originally enacted, and much shorter than what it became. Subsection (7) runs only to paragraph (i). It reaches areas zoned for commercial, industrial or mixed use and nothing else -- no religious-institution property, no flexibly zoned areas, no publicly owned property. There is no floor area ratio provision at all, no 1 July 2023 baseline, no exclusions from the density or height survey, no single-family adjacency cap, no historic-parcel provisions, no military-installation bar, no 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, no building-moratorium prohibition, no statutory definitions of commercial or industrial use, no annual report and no attorney-fee provisions. Parking relief is only a duty to CONSIDER a reduction within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Subsection (6)'s self-executing ten percent route reaches commercial and industrial parcels only. The single geographic exclusion is recreational and commercial working waterfront in an industrial zone. Cited by this corpus wherever a rule states what changed and when.
The SB 328 rewrite, and the middle term that makes the chronology decidable. Present for the first time: floor area ratio at 150 percent, the single-family adjacency height cap, the quarter-mile military installation bar, mandatory parking reduction and transit-oriented elimination, the website administrative-approval policy, and the exclusions that keep bonus-derived and prior-Live-Local buildings out of the density, FAR and height surveys. Still ABSENT, and therefore ch. 2025-172's rather than SB 328's: religious-institution and flexibly zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 baselines, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel provisions, administrative demolition approval, the (7)(n) definitions, the building-moratorium prohibition, the annual report to the state land planning agency and the $250,000 attorney-fee cap. Recorded because an earlier draft of this pass misattributed several of those to SB 328 on recall; this artifact is what settled it.
The ch. 2025-172 edition, and the one that carries most of what people attribute to SB 102 or SB 328. First present here: religious-institution and flexibly zoned sites, the 1 July 2023 alternative baselines for density, floor area ratio and height, the 10 percent nonresidential ceiling, the longer list of prohibited entitlement demands, the historic-parcel height survey and architectural-design provisions, administrative demolition approval, the 15-percent-on-request parking reduction, the (7)(n) definitions of commercial, industrial and mixed use, the building-moratorium prohibition at subsection (9), the annual report to the state land planning agency at subsection (10), the $250,000 attorney-fee cap and the adjacent-parcel inclusion. CORRECTION RECORDED: an earlier draft of the Live Local depth pass asserted, from a partial grep, that subsection (9) and the (7)(n) definitions were 2026 additions absent from this edition. Both are present here and absent from the 2024 edition. The wrong version never reached data/ or the database. Still absent from this edition, and therefore belonging to the 2026 group (ss. 15 ch. 2026-14; 2 ch. 2026-163; 2 ch. 2026-179): county, municipal and school-district property as sites, the co-applicant sentences, the 15-foot assemblage rule, the open-character-district exclusion, and the sentence barring height restrictions imposed through setbacks or stepbacks.
Kept so that the s. 196.1979 rules can be dated to the roll on which each provision actually took effect rather than to the roll the section's own subsection names. Established 2026-09-02 by diffing the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 editions word by word: the 2023 text (8,861 characters of operative text, History 's. 9, ch. 2023-17.') set the application deadline as a bare 'March 1', described the website list as one of 'certified properties', gave the ordinance-delivery duty as ten days 'after its adoption' with no outer date, and contained NO subsection on property appraiser review and NO subsection on the common-area share. The 2024 edition (9,931 characters, History 's. 9, ch. 2023-17; s. 14, ch. 2024-158; s. 5, ch. 2024-188.') added all of those, renumbered the first-application clause from (7) to (9), and is word-for-word what the 2025 and 2026 editions still serve. So the current text is the ch. 2024-158 / ch. 2024-188 text, not the text that governed the 2024 roll.
RECORDED AS SUPERSEDED AND CITED BY NOTHING, per the CLAUDE.md rule that an agency serving a stale edition alongside the current one should have the stale edition on file as an uncited source. DATED FROM ITS OWN FACE: the page footer reads '(Updated 04/2023)' and the section's amendment history ends '(Ord. 28798 Ex. A; passed Dec. 14, 2021...)'. It therefore predates Ord. 28910 (2023-10-31), which added 6A.110.005 and disapplied the general tax provisions; Ord. 29007 (2024-12-17); and Substitute Ord. 29059 Ex. A (2025-10-07), which is the ordinance that introduced the 90-percent continued-qualification threshold, the recorded Covenant Agreement precondition, the 10-percent-below-market test for a twelve-year extension, and the under-twenty-unit homeownership restriction on the eight-year option. Four separate compliance obligations in this overlay are absent from this document. THE DIFFERENCES WERE MEASURED, NOT ASSUMED: a machine comparison of every quote in the overlay against this printing found that the 2023 text letters the exemption-duration subsections 'E, F, or G' where the current chapter letters them 'F, G, or H'; that it starts the exemption clock from 'the Final Certificate of Tax Exemption' where the current chapter says 'the Final or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy'; that it CODIFIES the application fee as '$1,000 for four units, plus $100 per additional multi-family unit, up to a maximum total fee to the City of $5,000', which the current chapter replaced with a reference to the published Fee Schedule and which is why the City's 2022 tip sheet still states that range; and that it contains neither the annual declaration filed with the Director nor the five-year on-site audit recital at all. The `superseded` date is set to the effective date of the first amendment it does not contain. The City's live MFTE programme page still links it under 'Resources' as 'TMC CHAPTER 6A.110'.
Diff against src.ca.rtc_214 (AB 2897 edition), run 2026-09-02, confined to subdivision (g): (1) (g)(1)(A) gained 'qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, as that term is defined in Section 145 of Title 26 of the United States Code' as a qualifying financing source; (2) (g)(2)(A)(iii) was split, the LIHTC 140-percent-of-AMI over-income tolerance becoming subclause (I) and a NEW subclause (II) adding a 100-percent-of-AMI tolerance for non-LIHTC property under an enforceable and verifiable agreement with a public agency, operative 2024-25 through 2028-29; (3) (g)(2)(A)(iv), the community land trust clause, LOST its condition that the lease be 'subject to a contract that complies with the requirements of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1'; (4) (g)(3)(D)(ii)(I) widened from 'units specified in clause (iii)' to 'units specified in clause (iii) or (iv)'. ATTRIBUTION NOT ESTABLISHED: the diff spans amendments chaptered between September 2022 and September 2024 and leginfo's billCompareClient renders a chaptered bill against CURRENT law, so it shows no marks for section 214 and cannot say which chapter carried which change.
State coverage
Every LIHTC property is monitored by one of these agencies.
What the agencies' own materials left open
3740 across 59 jurisdictions. These are not rules held at low confidence — they are points where no rule was written because the source did not support one. Read all 3740.
- 26 CFR 1.42-10(b)(4)(ii) makes several methods available subject to agency involvement. Florida Housing's published Energy Consumption Model procedures establish that it exercises the (b)(4)(ii)(E) approval power, but whether Florida Housing restricts, conditions or declines any of the other methods -- in particular whether it provides an Agency Estimate under (b)(4)(ii)(C) -- and whether the annual review under (c)(2) must be filed with the agency, could not be confirmed from a Florida Housing source and is not assumed.
- This rule is dated from 2026-01-01, the assessment date of the tax roll governed by the 2026 Florida Statutes edition that was actually read, not from the provision's original enactment, which the document does not state. A point-in-time question about an earlier tax roll must be answered from that year's edition rather than by reading this window backwards.
- TDHCA has not reissued CM-SubCh-F-Searchable.pdf. Its Compliance Manuals and Rules page still labels the file 'effective 1/02/2025', every one of the PDF's Source Notes reads 'adopted to be effective January 2, 2025, 49 TexReg 10513', and the subsection encoded here does not appear in that PDF at all. A reviewer who reads only the agency's own published Subchapter F will conclude this obligation does not exist. Until TDHCA reissues, the Texas Register issue of 24 April 2026 is the primary copy of the rule in force; if a later TDHCA PDF differs from the Register, the Register governs and the difference must be recorded rather than reconciled silently.
- 10.601(g) is stated once and is not repeated in any of the sections that key off it, so a development's status under it is a property-level fact that has to be established from the Contract, the LURA and any opt-in amendment and then carried to every dependent rule. TDHCA publishes no register of which developments are subject and no self-service way for an owner to check. The resolver must treat an unrecorded status as unknown, not as 'not subject'.
- The 'last business day of February' is a floating date IHFA does not restate annually in a notification letter (unlike KHRC's April 15); no published notice for a specific reporting year was located to confirm the practice has not changed since the 2020 manual. Re-verify against Procorem notifications.
- Whether IHFA grants extensions for the owner certification (as distinct from post-audit correction responses, where extensions are case-by-case) is not stated in the manual. Not guessed.
- The QAP does not state the AOC's reporting period. The ARO Annual Owner's Certification form for the same Department expressly covers a calendar year (1/1 to 12/31), but the LIHTC AOC's October 1 due date does not sit naturally after a calendar year end, and no published DOH document says whether the LIHTC AOC reports on the prior calendar year, the trailing twelve months, or the owner's fiscal year. Not guessed.
- No late fee, penalty schedule or grace period for a missed October 1 LIHTC AOC was located. The QAP routes failure to submit into the notification and 90-day corrective action process and, separately, lists 'history of non-compliance' among the Unacceptable Practices that can disqualify a sponsor from future City Financial Assistance, but publishes no monetary charge. Note that the QAP DOES publish a $20-per-unit late penalty for late submission of compliance monitoring information generally -- whether DOH applies that penalty to a late AOC is not stated.
- effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
- effective.from was 2026-06-01, taken from the source url's /2026-06/ directory segment rather than from the document. The NCHFA manual prints no cover or footer date; its only self-dating is a Document Revision History row reading 12/2025. Corrected to 2025-12-01 on 2026-08-27. Whether that row dates this edition or only its most recent revision is unresolved, so the true start of this obligation may be earlier.
- HCR does not publish a SLIHC 90% AMI limit series inside the Capital Programs Manual and the manual gives no pointer to where the 90% figures come from. Whether SLIHC uses HUD MTSP limits extrapolated to 90%, HUD's own 80% figures scaled, or a separate HCR publication is unresolved and must not be guessed -- the arithmetic differs by hundreds of dollars per household size.
- The manual states the income averaging ceiling as 80% AMI 'provided that the average imputed income limit for the entire project is at or below 60% AMI' without addressing the 10-designation structure of the federal rule or what happens when a project's average drifts above 60%. Section 7.10.04's NAUR paragraph is the only remedial mechanism named.
- The manual (p. 6-2) and the QAP (p. 29) both name the components but neither states a late fee, a grace period, or what 'may be determined noncompliant' converts into procedurally -- whether a late package is itself an 8823 category or only a trigger for further review. No fee schedule for late annual reporting was located on dbedt.hawaii.gov/hhfdc on 2026-08-24. Not guessed.
- The manual routes the electronic Status Report through software downloaded from spectrumlihtc.com; the QAP says the report is submitted 'in such format as required by HHFDC or its Authorized Delegate'. Whether Spectrum has migrated Hawaii to a web portal (as it has for other states it monitors) since the April 2024 manual was written was not confirmable from any HHFDC-published document.
- The statute says a default must be 'not cured within a reasonable cure period' but fixes no number of days, and the CTCAC regulations read for this pass do not supply one for regulatory agreement defaults either (the 90-day figure at 4 CCR 10337(a)(1)(D) is a ground lessor's notice period, not the sponsor's cure period). The operative cure period is therefore whatever the executed agreement states; extract it from the property document.
- The statute sets no deadline for this notification and the CTCAC regulations read for this pass do not supply one. Whether the executed regulatory agreement fixes a period is a property-document question.
- NDHFA publishes NO fixed calendar due date for the annual restriction review - the manual says only that the deadline is 'stated in the review notification' sent by email to the management agent, and the late-fee clause keys to that same notification deadline. The due-date parameter is therefore encoded without a value. Not guessed; the operative date must be read from each year's notification.
- Whether the review covers the prior calendar year for all projects or shifts for fiscal-year owners is not stated; the manual fixes the review period as 01/01-12/31 and that is what is encoded.
- The April 15 due date is published per report year in KHRC's December notification letter, not fixed in the compliance manual, which says only that reports are due 'generally in the Spring'. April 15 is verified for report year 2025 (due 2026). Earlier and later report years were not verified and the date should be re-read from each year's letter.
- The extension length is stated inconsistently across current KHRC documents. Manual sec. 16.4 Step 3 says 'for annual report submissions, only an additional two months will be approved'; the December 2025 letter and State Form #34 both say 30 days (to May 15, 2026). The 30 days is encoded because the later, report-year-specific documents say so, but which controls has not been confirmed with KHRC.
- VHCB publishes no income limit table for its own state fund. The limit tables on vhcb.org that were located in this pass are the federal HOME and national HTF series (HOME_IncomeLmts_State_VT_2026.pdf, HTF_IncomeLmts_State_VT_2026.pdf). Whether VHCB in practice applies one of those series to state-fund-only units, or leaves it wholly to the covenant, is not stated in any document fetched.
- 10 V.S.A. § 303(5) defines lower income against 'the median income based on statistics from State or federal sources' without saying which -- state median or HUD area median. In Vermont those differ materially between Chittenden County and the rest of the state. The statute leaves the choice open and this pass does not close it.
- The manual says a TSP 'may be reviewed by DCA/GHFA when conducting monitoring duties' but does not say whether a missing TSP is itself a citable finding or only an observation, nor which 8823 category it would be reported under.
- 'If an owner accepts electronic applications, the TSP must be posted on their website' does not say whether a third-party listing portal that collects applications (for example georgiahousingsearch.org, which DCA separately requires properties to be listed on) counts as accepting electronic applications.
- NJHMFA's manual states that certifications 'should not be more than 120 days old' without identifying the reference date the age is measured against - signature to effective date, effective date to the date of review, or execution to move-in - and the corpus does not guess among them. The 120-day figure is therefore recorded as a parameter but NOT asserted by any test on this rule, because each candidate reading produces a different finding on the same file: an annual TIC is by definition more than 120 days old before its successor is due, so a literal reading of the sentence would place every compliant recertifying file out of compliance for two-thirds of the year. What would make it evaluable is an NJHMFA statement fixing the reference date, or its own review practice showing which document date it measures from. The rule's separate scope ambiguity - whether the sentence reaches annual recertifications as well as the initial certification, which its placement in the Tenant Income Certification step of Chapter 4 suggests but does not say - compounds this and is recorded in the rule's notes.
- The NJHMFA manual, as read for this rule, does not record which alternative under 26 CFR 1.42-5(d)(2) NJHMFA has elected -- local codes or other habitability standards, or the HUD standards at 24 CFR 5.703 (now NSPIRE). No NJHMFA document in this corpus names UPCS or NSPIRE. Not guessed.
- Whether the one-time 30-day warning notice is one-time per property per year or one-time over the property's life is not stated; the manual's phrasing ('only a one-time notice will be issued') and the example both leave it ambiguous. Not guessed.
- The QAP directs the certification to a named DSHA staff member by mail while the manual's MITAS chapter describes electronic reporting; whether a paper filing is still literally required alongside MITAS data entry was not confirmed.
- SDH publishes NO monetary late fee for a late annual report - the stated consequence is Form 8823 after notification and non-response. The absence is deliberate in this encoding; do not import ND's or KS's late fees.
- The Owner's Certificate text makes the owner certify each building is suitable for occupancy 'within the local health, safety, building codes and UPCS as defined by HUD' (p. 10) while the manual's Physical Review section says SDH inspects to NSPIRE (p. 38). Both are in the current September 2024 edition. The conflict is carried here and on the inspection rule; not silently harmonised.
- The manual's note that 'HUD does not mandate the Work Number' and to 'provide level 4 documentation' if unused leaves open whether OHFA expects agents with Work Number access to prefer it over tenant-provided stubs.
- Whether OHFA accepts a functionally equivalent industry questionnaire in place of PC-E01 is not stated; the manual says the form 'may be amended from time to time' but not that it may be substituted.
- Commerce's Section 501.1.1 carries a bracketed note that HOTMA 'will be assessed and implemented by Commerce in due time', so the 24 CFR 5.609 the Handbook points at may not be the current post-HOTMA federal text. Which vintage of 5.609 Commerce applies today is not stated in the May 28, 2026 Handbook.
- The statute keys eligibility to the COUNTY median; Commerce's programme page and its limit tables speak of Area Median Income. In a multi-county HUD area these are not the same figure. Which series Commerce's published HTF limits actually use was not established from the documents fetched -- the limits themselves are hosted on Box and were not opened for this pass.
- How MBOH assigns a property to a reporting cohort (and whether an owner can request a change beyond the CP 'Change Report Period' control) is not published. The assigned period is a property attribute that must be read from CP, not inferred.
- The manual's checklist and the QAP's checklist differ slightly in current documents: the manual lists the Annual Financial Report as 'audited financial statements' while the QAP Appendix C.H lists an 'Income/Expense Report' and 'Reserves Form' without the audit qualifier, and the Annual Compliance Reporting web page adds that Montana Housing mails the Property Contact, Income and Expense Summary and Reserves forms directly to owners. Encoded as the union; which financial artifact satisfies the requirement for unaudited owners has not been confirmed with MBOH.
- DHCD's February 2012 Owner's Compliance Manual (Part I, Sec. V, p. 18) states the annual owner certification is due March 31; DHCD's current AOC page sets May 11, 2026 for the 2025 certification period with a June 1, 2026 backstop. No document was located that formally supersedes the March 31 date, and no regulation fixing a recurring AOC date was found. Which date governs in a cycle where DHCD does not publish one is unresolved. Not guessed.
- Whether the June 1 date is a grace period on the May 11 submission date or an independent second deadline (and whether an AOC filed between the two dates is itself late) is not stated. Confirm with PAMD.
- The manual sets the mandatory date 'no later than January 1, 2027' -- language that contemplates an earlier date being set for some developments. It does not say by whom, on what notice, or whether the LURA or a policy memorandum would carry such a date.
- 'HOTMA-related tenant file errors' is not defined, and many of CHFA's HOTMA-aligned rules restate positions that were already required pre-HOTMA. Which errors fall inside the observation-only window is left to the Program Compliance Officer.
- AHFA does not publish the length of the 'written cure period' it provides after an inspection for tenant-event mismatches; the 2027 QAP Addendum B refers to 'the latest (latest due date) cure period provided in writing by AHFA' without stating a range. Whether this is a standard interval or set case by case is unknown.
- The manual (Chapter 8) and Addendum B both refer to entering tenant data 'monthly (see QAP or HOME Action Plan for specific requirements)'. The HOME Action Plan's compliance addendum was not fetched this pass, so whether HOME-funded Alabama projects carry a different DMS cadence than the day-15 Housing Credit rule is unresolved.
- The QAP requires the annual certification 'for the 30-year period during which the project is subject to regulation under Section 42' (p. 29). Whether HPD applies the same March 1 deadline, the same eRent Roll and new-move-in-file contents, and the same $25/unit fee during the post-Year-15 extended use period, or a reduced package, is not stated in any source read this pass.
- No late fee, penalty schedule, or stated consequence for missing the March 1 deadline was located. The QAP routes a 'failure to submit the owner certification' to IRS Form 8823 under Section 42(m)(1)(B)(iii) with a discretionary correction period of up to 90 days (extendable to 180), but HPD publishes no monetary late charge.
- The 2023 Compliance Manual restates NRS 118A.300 with the superseded 45-day/15-day notice periods (pre-2021 text); the statute has required 60/30 days since the 2021 amendment (ch. 401). Confirm with NHD that monitoring is applied against the current statutory 60/30-day periods and whether a manual correction is forthcoming.
- Neither the manual nor the QAP defines 'family property' vs 'senior property' for purposes of the 10%/5% cap; presumed to follow the project type designated in the application/Declaration. SME confirmation needed.
- THE TYPO IS IHCDA'S, NOT THE CORPUS'S, and it is confined to one page. The manual was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and hash-matches its source record (1,804,913 bytes, sha256 b96e68df4e6c4c3989767607415a0e4d0790d8f529962dfd0a631e22f70b785a). It prints 'PIH 2023-7' TWICE, both on printed p. 90 - in the sentence directing owner agents to the hierarchy, and in the footnote to the hierarchy table - and prints the correct 'PIH 2023-27' at printed pp. 7, 13, 34, 86, 102 and 104, including in its own resource list at p. 86. The correct number is HUD Notice H 2023-10 / PIH 2023-27. Oregon's manual carries the identical misprint in the identical place, which points to a common drafting ancestor rather than two independent slips.
- IHCDA prints the joint notice number as 'PIH 2023-7' in Part 6.3B and as 'PIH 2023-27' everywhere else in the same manual. The correct HUD number is PIH 2023-27. Whether IHCDA will correct the Part 6.3B references in the next revision is unknown; until it does, a reader following IHCDA's own citation to the hierarchy will not find the notice.
- The manual contradicts itself on the LIHTC Annual Owner's Certification due date: the On-Line Reporting bullet list (ch. 5, p. 47) says 'due by January 31 each year' while chapter 9 says February 28 three times, including in the 'Annual Reporting for LIHTC Projects' list. February 28 is encoded because the reporting chapter is the specific, controlling treatment; January 31 is the stated due date for the separate HOME/NSP/NHTF owner certification (ch. 6), and the ch. 5 bullet may simply have carried it over. Not confirmed with WCDA.
- Whether the $25/day late fee runs per project or per delinquent item when several items are late is not stated.
- The 2027 QAP (Compliance Monitoring Plan, pp. 84-85) states that 'County Assessors must receive certain information by April 30 of each year' -- operating statement, rent rolls, and federal and commercial financing terms, with a 3-year history if not previously provided -- and attributes the requirement to Utah Admin. Code R884-24P-67 and Utah Code 59-2-102/59-2-301.3. The currently published text of R884-24P-67 ('Information Required for Valuation of Low-Income Housing') imposes only a UHC-to-Tax Commission reporting duty by January 31 of the year following placement in service and contains no owner-to-assessor April 30 duty. The obligation is therefore stated by UHC but its cited legal hook could not be verified; it was NOT encoded as a rule this pass. Confirm the operative authority (possibly a different subsection of 59-2-301.3, or a superseded version of R884-24P-67) before authoring it.
- The manual does not state whether the 30-day desk-audit correction period is measured from the date of UHC's notice or from the April 30 due date, nor whether an extension granted for 'extenuating circumstances' has a ceiling. Not guessed.
- The manual does not publish a late fee or other monetary penalty for a missed or defective annual Certification -- the stated consequence is the 8823/State Notice itself. Whether IFA assesses a separate late charge was not located in the manual or either QAP.
- The manual says the required Certificate form is 'updated and posted in December each year to the IFA website'; the specific form version in force for a given reporting year is therefore a moving target that this rule does not pin. Resolve against the IFA compliance page for the year under review.
- THE TYPO IS OHCS'S, NOT THE CORPUS'S. The manual was re-fetched 2026-08-28 and hash-matches its source record (1,985,003 bytes, sha256 85d9949f92e2359da731a4a4ce3c38544abb3881e430b9bbbf920b652b7cb613). It prints 'PIH 2023-7' four times - once at printed p. 98, twice at p. 101 (the sentence adopting the hierarchy and the footnote to the table), once at p. 102 - and prints the correct 'PIH 2023-27' at printed pp. 7, 14, 93 and 126, including in its own resource list at p. 93. The correct number is HUD Notice H 2023-10 / PIH 2023-27. Indiana's manual carries the identical misprint in the identical place, which points to a common drafting ancestor rather than two independent slips.
- THE MANUAL CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON THE PAY STUB COUNT, and this rule follows the operative passage. Part 9.03 at p. 102 requires 'the four most recent, consecutive paystubs', which is what this rule states. The tenant-file checklist at Part 10.01 p. 127 instead reads 'Paystubs- if used paystubs must submit no less than four, current and consecutive months; if HOME, two months source documents' - four MONTHS, not four stubs, which for a weekly or biweekly payroll is a materially larger package. A third passage in the income-calculation section says 'OHCS requires a minimum of four (4) paystubs.' Two of the three say stubs, so stubs is encoded; the checklist wording is recorded here rather than reconciled.
- The cutover is written as '1 July 2025 or such later date as HUD may require full HOTMA implementation'. If HUD moved the compliance date after May 2025, the guide's own text defers to HUD, but Minnesota Housing does not say how or where it would announce the later date -- there is no memo series named in the guide. A specialist cannot tell from this document alone whether 2025-07-01 is still the operative date.
- The guide does not say whether an owner could adopt HOTMA voluntarily before 1 July 2025, as CTCAC and several other agencies expressly permitted. The 'effective before July 1, 2025 ... refer to HUD Handbook 4350.3' sentence reads as mandatory rather than as a floor, but no sentence forbids early adoption either.
- DEADLINE CONFLICT, UNRESOLVED. 99-346 C.M.R. ch. 16 section 10.C (May 19, 2026) says March 1. MaineHousing's 'Annual LIHTC Reporting Process' page and item 11 of the Post Year 15 policy (4/6/2020) both say May 1, and both remained linked from https://www.mainehousing.org/partners/partner-type/asset-management on 2026-08-24 with PDF ModDates of 2026-04-10, i.e. they were re-posted during the 2026 site refresh. It is possible MaineHousing intends March 1 for the owner certification and May 1 for the electronic tenant data, since section 10.C lists them as two numbered items under one deadline while the older documents describe a three-part May 1 package; the rule's text does not support splitting them and no such split is inferred here. Confirm with MaineHousing Asset Management before relying on either date.
- Chapter 16 section 10.C requires the tenant data 'in the form and manner required by MaineHousing' but does not name the system. The older documents name 'WCMS' and 'Web Tenant Compliance (WTC)' -- apparently the same system under two names -- and MaineHousing separately publishes 'Web Tenant Compliance - Registration Directions' and a 'HDS NextGen Multifamily Portal UserGuide'. Which system is current for LIHTC tenant data submission was not determinable from published material.
- 'Most recent version of HUD Handbook 4350.3' has no edition or change number, so the manual does not date its own income definition. For a point-in-time question -- what income definition governed a Wisconsin certification effective in, say, March 2025 -- this document alone cannot answer, and the corpus's own freshness model cannot detect a change, because the change happens in a HUD document WHEDA does not cite by number.
- WHEDA adopts the HOTMA foster-member treatment while deferring generally to Handbook 4350.3, whose pre-HOTMA text counted foster members for income. The manual does not say whether that single adoption implies HOTMA generally, or is a deliberate carve-out from an otherwise pre-HOTMA posture.
- The 12/2021 compliance manual says only 'the January due date' and never states January 31; the date comes from Allocation Plan sec. 18.3. Whether NIFA has ever set a different January date for a particular year was not verified.
- No extension mechanism for the annual submission was located in either document - the manual's Chapter 7 corrective measure for a missed January date is simply to submit and avoid 8823s and late fees. Whether NIFA grants extensions at all is not published. Not guessed.
- SC states no Level 5 upfront-verification tier and no Level 2 oral tier. Whether an owner who telephoned an employer and documented the call has done anything SC recognises is unanswerable on the manual's face; under Table J2 that is a permitted step before self-certification.
- SC says the file 'must be documented... prior to moving to the next method of verification' and refers back to a section called 'Review of Documents' for how. No section of that name exists in the 2/12/2026 edition; the nearest text is item 3.A, Requirements for Verifications. The cross-reference is broken and what the documentation must say is therefore unstated.
- The 'LIHTC Compliance Monitoring Status Report' is named as a required February 1 submission in the 2026 QAP Section V but is not described anywhere in the 2026 compliance manual, and no form by that name appears in ADFA's document library. Whether it is a distinct form, the MITAS-generated status report, or a legacy name for the Form 400 package was not established. Not guessed.
- No late fee or late-filing penalty for a missed February 1 package is published in the manual, the QAP or Form 400. The manual states only that failure to complete the form in its entirety 'will result in noncompliance with program regulations'. Whether the $50-per-unit penalty at ar.lihtc.noncompliance_penalty_50_per_unit reaches a late annual filing (its text ties it to units 'sampled or reviewed' at a monitoring visit) was not established.
- The 2023 Compliance Monitoring Plan (p. 108) states an April 30 AOC deadline; the AOC Report Guidelines (Rev. 03/2024) and Program Bulletin #26-1003 state May 31. MHC has not published a revised full CMP reconciling the two. The later documents are encoded as governing; confirm with MHC whether the CMP date is simply stale or whether some class of development is still on April 30.
- Program Bulletin #26-1003 fixes the deadline for the 2026 report year only. Whether May 31 is a standing rule or is re-set annually is not stated in any document read this pass -- the bulletin is reissued each year, so the date carries per-year supersession risk.
- The manual requires 'Evidence of LIHTC training within the past three years' with the annual year-end forms (p. 6-2) but does not state which trainings/certifications qualify or whose training (owner vs. site manager) must be evidenced. Not guessed; confirm with CHFA/Spectrum.
- No late-fee dollar amount for a late annual package is published in the manual -- late/incomplete submissions 'may be determined noncompliant' (p. 7-1) but no fee schedule was located.
- The Guide does not say what documentation of an 'active search' looks like, nor how far back a work history has to run to count as history 'within the same field'.
- It does not address the case where a household member has an offer with a start date beyond the twelve-month anticipation window, or an offer that is conditional.
- KHC joins the first two bullets with 'or' and the remainder with 'and', so it is not clear on the face of the text whether all four documents are required or whether the file-note and the date-stamped request are alternatives. The parameter records four; a reviewer should assume all four until KHC clarifies.
- KHC publishes no Level 1. Whether that means self-certification is unavailable outside the named exceptions, or merely unnumbered, is not stated. A Kentucky file that self-certified an income source after completing the four-document packet has no stated authority permitting it and no stated authority forbidding it.
- The tenant data deadline is stated inconsistently across current NH documents: the Compliance Monitoring Requirements (rev. 12/31/2020) say 'the tenant data upload must be completed by February 1 of each year', while the Household Certification Requirements and the December 2025 AIT guidance both say complete calendar-year data is due March 1. March 1 is encoded because the two more recently issued documents and the compliance web page state it; whether February 1 remains operative for any submission has not been confirmed with NH Housing.
- The Annual Certification of Service Coordination is required by the monitoring requirements without stating which properties owe it. Service Coordination is a 9% threshold requirement under QAP sec. 109.06.I; whether 4% projects and pre-Service-Coordination-era allocations must file the certification (or file it as N/A) is not published. Not guessed.
- Whether both channels (COL electronic filing and the notarized paper original) remain required in current practice was not confirmable beyond the July 2016 plan text, which the 2025 QAP incorporates unchanged; no later circular letter modifying the procedure is published on afv.pr.gov.
- Neither the CMP nor the 2025 QAP mentions HOTMA; no PRHFA HOTMA implementation guidance could be located on 2026-08-25. The certification content list in CMP II.F predates HOTMA.
- AHFC publishes no fixed calendar due date for the annual review package anywhere located on 2026-08-25; the operative dates are set per property in each year's IAD 'Notice Letter', which is not published on the website. The annual_report_due_date parameter is therefore encoded with no value - it is not borrowed from a peer state. Confirm the current cycle's date from the property's own notice letter.
- The 16-item response list is from the 07/01/2011 reference manual, which states it is 'subject to change without notice'; the June 2026 QAP's 13-item list (G)(i-xiii) is a subset. The union is described here; which list controls in a conflict year has not been confirmed with IAD.
- IHDA carves Social Security award letters out of the 120-day window (§4.6.9) because SSA benefits are fixed for 12 months; the manual does not state whether other annually-fixed sources (e.g. pensions with annual COLAs) get the same treatment.
- IHDA does not state a maximum stub count or whether an owner may adopt a stricter house-policy minimum without IHDA approval.
- MHDC bars EIV for 'LIHTC or HOME income calculations' but its HOTMA Manual also prints the unmodified HUD Level 6 row stating that owners 'must pull the EIV Income Report for each family at every Annual Reexamination'. For a unit that is LIHTC only, MHDC's annotation controls; for a layered LIHTC/Section 8 unit the two duties coexist on different determinations. MHDC does not spell that out.
- MHDC does not state what happens if an EIV report is found in a tax credit file at a monitoring visit -- whether it is a curable file defect, a finding, or simply removed. No Form 8823 category is cited.
- The deck says pre-planned actions effective 1 January 2025 through 30 April 2025 'will be subject to phased-in considerations' and never says what those considerations are -- whether the certification may be completed on pre-HOTMA methodology, must be redone, or is simply not cited. THDA's compliance division should be asked; the corpus states the band and not a consequence.
- The deck is training material and disclaims reliance ('Attendees should not solely rely on this training'). THDA publishes no compliance manual, so no binding instrument states the 1 January 2025 date. Whether a THDA monitoring officer would cite a 2025 certification that used pre-HOTMA methodology is not established by any document.
- The 2026 manual says the certification 'must be submitted as directed by RIHousing's annual notice' rather than fixing January 31 in the manual itself; January 31 (4PM) is verified from Program Bulletin 2024-05 for certification year 2024 and from the manual's training-policy section ('by January 31 of each year'). The date should be re-read from each December's bulletin.
- No published grace period or late-submission cure before the 8823 issues was located - contrast Delaware's one-time 30-day warning notice. Not guessed.
- The matrix gives no examples of 'unsecured and unverifiable' income (sporadic gifts? undocumented side work?); the boundary against IHDA's 'independent contractor / day laborer income is not excluded' position is undefined for Pennsylvania.
- Whether 'average' means the midpoint of the endpoints or a weighted figure when the source supplies a distribution (e.g. hours 'between 20 and 35, usually 32') is not stated.
- The 2024 QAP does not name the current Authorized Delegate for Guam, and no delegation contract was located; forms are addressed 'to GHURA or its Authorized Delegate at the address shown in Section II'. Not guessed.
- No late fee, grace period or extension procedure for the February 1 report is published anywhere in the QAP. The only stated consequences are the noncompliance process (30-day correction) and IRS notification.
- The QAP does not say what CDA does where an owner records no election by the execution date -- whether CDA declines to execute, or a default election applies.
- 'Execution ... by CDA and the project owner' implies two dates. Which of the two controls where they differ is not stated.
- The guidance states the 120-day rule under the heading 'Assets' but its sentence covers 'income and assets'. Whether Virginia Housing applies the same window to an ANNUAL RECERTIFICATION at a property with market units (where recertification is required) is not stated; the sentence names only 'Move-in or initial certifications'.
- Virginia Housing publishes no Tenant Income Certification form of its own -- its Compliance Forms and Documents page points to the NCSHA Model Compliance Forms -- so the packet contents against which this window is measured are defined off-site. Whether Virginia Housing treats a non-NCSHA property-management-system TIC as equivalent is stated permissively in the HOTMA Summary ('property management software, a manual form') but nowhere for the supporting verifications.
- The effective date is the 2023-2024 QAP's first plan year; no adoption date is printed in the document and none was located. The identical February 1 obligation appears in the 2025-2026 edition, which NMHC serves only as a watermarked DRAFT despite running the 2025 cycle under it - the final/draft status of the current edition is itself an open question.
- NMHC's current Authorized Delegate, if any, is not named in either QAP edition and none was located. Not guessed.
- The manual does not state how an owner is notified that the LHC Compliance Department has 'confirmed compliance' so the modified regime may begin, nor whether that confirmation is written. Unverified.
- The 2025 QAP Appendix C states $40 per unit while the LHC fee schedule effective 8/08/2025 states $45.00 per unit as a minimum. The newer fee schedule is encoded as operative, but whether existing Compliance Monitoring Agreements executed under earlier QAPs continue to owe their contract rate (e.g., $40) rather than the current published rate is not stated in either source. Unverified.
- No day within June is stated - the deadline is published only as 'by June of each calendar year'. Encoded at exactly that resolution.
- 'Per unit' is not qualified as per LIHTC unit versus per residential unit; encoded as written, without narrowing.
- Applicability keys on unit.programs containing 'local_inclusionary' plus EITHER property.jurisdiction_id == 'ca.pasadena' OR property.state_agency_id == 'ca.pasadena.housing'. If neither fact is supplied the rule reports applicability_unknown, not not_applicable, and never a violation.
- THE PROJECT'S OWN RECORDED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AGREEMENT GOVERNS AND NONE WAS READ. Part II.B.1 of the Regulations says 'The City's standard form of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement may be obtained from the Housing and Career Services Department', and Part II.B.2 says 'The form of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement will vary, depending on the manner in which the provisions of Chapter 17.42 are satisfied for a particular Residential Project.' The City publishes no template and no executed agreement was obtained this pass, so the unit-level obligations that actually run with the land are not in this corpus.
- The 2017 manual states February 15 as the annual deadline; the December 22, 2025 annual compliance letter states February 13, 2026. Whether the letter's date reflects a business-day adjustment or a policy change to mid-February float is not stated. The annual letter governs each cycle.
- Whether the audited-financial-statement requirement applies to LIHTC properties with no WVHDF financing (the letter is addressed to all WV LIHTC owners and states no exception), and what an owner without an audit obligation may submit instead. WVHDF is lender and allocating agency at once; the letter does not say which role imposes this item. Not guessed.
- Whether the MSHDA Compliance Period applies to a given project ('if applicable') is determined only by its Regulatory Agreement; the manual gives no default. A resolver must treat absence of the recorded agreement as unknown, not as federal-only.
- The manual monitors against the 2013 HOME Final Rule. The 2025 Final Rule's expanded safe harbors (accepted by CO and OH) are not reflected in the July 2026 update's Part 311; whether MSHDA rejects them deliberately or has simply not rewritten the manual is unknown. The manual as served is what Michigan says, and is what is encoded.
- OHFA has published no HOTMA implementation guidance for the LIHTC program that could be located on ohfa.org this pass. The September 2024 manual's Chapter 5 income text is still the pre-HOTMA 24 CFR 5.609 inclusion/exclusion list and even retains a 2012-vintage editor's note about a then-proposed HERA rule. Whether OHFA expects HOTMA-compliant income determinations on certifications submitted with the February 15 package -- and from what date -- is not stated anywhere located. Not guessed; confirm with the OHFA Tax Credit Compliance Department.
- The manual and the QAP both describe the Certification Portal (CP, formerly 'Certification On-Line'/COL) but the only user documentation located is a March 2022 DRAFT Certification Portal Guide. Whether a current guide fixes a different data-format or submission-order requirement was not verified.
- NO DUE DATE IS PUBLISHED. Neither the certificate, the DBAS project-owners page, nor Spectrum's American Samoa page states when the annual certification is due, and no annual-report notice was located. The due-date parameter is encoded with no value - deliberately not borrowed from Guam's or the CNMI's February 1.
- PROGRAM-MODELING CAVEAT: this is a Section 1602 (ARRA credit-exchange) obligation, monitored under Section 42 rules per Section 1602(c)(3) of ARRA Division B, and the corpus has no dedicated 1602 program id, so the rule is carried on the lihtc program with the 1602 basis stated. Whether American Samoa has any post-2011 conventional Section 42 allocations outstanding was not established; the only located QAP is a 2008 draft mirrored at novoco.com (403 to automated fetch) and DBAS's own site publishes no QAP.
- Audited financials deadline unreconciled: MFA web page says March 31, Compliance Plan says 120 days of fiscal year end.
- Relationship between the 45-day cure clock (Plan section 5.9) and the 30-day monitoring-report response window (section 7) is unclear.
- ADOH's compliance manual is behind a Cloudflare bot challenge as of 2026-09-01. Both a plain fetch and a JavaScript-executing browser session reach the interstitial and neither clears it. That is why Arizona is the thinnest state in this corpus at 7 rules -- not because the gaps are unknown. The unread sections are named in the questions above.
- Full utility allowance method detail (Section 3.12: RHS/RD, HUD-regulated, and conventional LIHTC variants) not yet read for testable parameters