Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for rental housing for members of the Armed Forces.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 308 is a plan to give tax help to people who build and rent out homes to soldiers, so they can find cheaper places to live. It says a soldier's housing money from the military shouldn't count when deciding if they can get these special tax benefits.
Summary AI
H.R. 308 aims to change the Internal Revenue Code to offer tax benefits for rental housing catering to members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The bill proposes that a military member's basic housing allowance should not be considered when calculating income for specific housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds. It also suggests increasing low-income housing credit for buildings near large military installations, without mandating that these buildings must exclusively house military personnel. This legislation is intended to expand affordable housing options for active military members and encourage investment in such housing projects.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Low Income Housing for Defense Communities Act," seeks to modify the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It aims to introduce tax incentives specifically targeted at enhancing rental housing availability for members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The key provisions of the bill involve an adjustment to income calculations by excluding the military basic housing allowance when determining eligibility for low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds. Additionally, buildings located within 15 miles of large military installations could receive an increased low-income housing credit. These buildings are not strictly required to be occupied by Armed Forces members, potentially broadening their availability to other community segments.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from the provisions outlined in the bill:
Equity Concerns: The exclusion of military basic housing allowances from income calculations could provide undue advantages to Armed Forces members over other low-income groups who do not receive such allowances. This could result in ethical and financial disparities.
Legal Ambiguities: The removal of certain clauses described as "deadwood" within the existing tax code without a clear explanation of these changes may lead to misunderstandings or unintended impacts on stakeholders.
Narrow Definition of 'Large Military Installation': The bill defines a large military installation based solely on a plant replacement value above $2,833,000,000. This approach might overlook other critical aspects of operational size or significance, potentially mislabeling some installations.
Unclear Connection to Other Legislation: The bill references additional steps and acts, like the "Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2023," without clarifying how they interrelate, leading to potential confusion for stakeholders involved in housing investment and planning.
Occupancy Preferences: The provision that buildings need not be exclusively occupied by Armed Forces personnel does not clearly define occupation parameters, which might result in allocation disputes or community tension.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact: If enacted, the bill could stimulate investment in housing projects near military bases, potentially increasing the housing supply in these areas. However, the benefit might not be equitably distributed, as Armed Forces members might have more favorable access due to the adjusted income calculation method. This could limit resource allocation for other low-income citizens in the same areas.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders:
Armed Forces Members: The primary beneficiaries are likely to see significant advantages through more accessible affordable housing options. Excluding housing allowances from income calculations might give them greater eligibility for reduced-cost accommodations.
Real Estate Developers: Developers might find increased incentives to create housing within the defined proximity to military installations, especially as these projects may access enhanced tax credits. However, ambiguity about the size and significance of local installations may lead to cautious investment strategies.
Local Communities: Residents near military bases could experience positive economic impacts from development projects. Nevertheless, the lack of clarity on occupancy rules might deter community cohesion or lead to competition over available housing resources.
In summary, while the bill has the potential to enhance housing affordability for military communities, it also raises several concerns regarding fairness, clarity, and implementation that need addressing to avoid potential pitfalls and to distribute benefits equitably.
Financial Assessment
In examining H.R. 308, the financial aspects of this legislation, especially concerning tax incentives for rental housing aimed at members of the Armed Forces, stand out prominently. The bill suggests significant alterations to the tax code which can financially impact both military members and potential developers of housing near military installations.
Financial References in the Bill
Military Basic Housing Allowance
The bill proposes that the military basic housing allowance should not be considered when calculating income for obtaining certain housing tax credits. This adjustment aims to make it easier for service members to qualify for low-income housing. However, this could present an equity issue. Given that the military allowance is excluded from income determinations, military members might find themselves at an advantageous position compared to other low-income individuals who do not receive such allowances. This might lead to discussions about fairness and equity, particularly seen in sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2).
Definition of Large Military Installation
Another notable financial reference is the $2,833,000,000 threshold used to define a "large military installation." This definition implies financial significance where buildings nearby such installations could receive increased low-income housing credit. The concern here, highlighted in the issues, is that using this monetary threshold might not fully reflect the operational capability or logistical significance of a military base. This could lead to either overqualification or underqualification of installations impacting developers' investment decisions and community planning.
Issues Related to Financial References
Transparency and Clarity
The section of the bill regarding tax-exempt bonds amendments, specifically the "repeal of deadwood," strikes out certain clauses without a clear articulation of those clauses' contents. Such ambiguities could lead to unintended legal or financial consequences. Stakeholders who previously relied on these now-struck provisions might find themselves in a precarious financial position without clear guidance or alternatives provided.
Policy Ambiguity and Alignment with Other Acts
The bill mentions the intention to complement the "Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2023". Unfortunately, without clear linkage or explanation on how these acts will interact, stakeholders might find financial planning and strategic investments challenging. The absence of a detailed explanation could lead to policy confusion, affecting housing projects' financial feasibility.
Effectiveness of Date and Logistical Concerns
Lastly, the bill sets out effective dates for its provisions but does not align them with typical fiscal or infrastructural project timelines. This lack of alignment can cause logistical and financial uncertainty, potentially affecting ongoing or forthcoming housing projects. Developers and financiers might face difficulties in projecting costs and returns on investments due to possible shifts in applicability around these timelines.
In conclusion, while H.R. 308 seeks to provide financial relief and promote housing investment for military members, the bill also presents issues of equity, clarity, and potential unintended financial consequences. The balance between benefiting military personnel and ensuring fair access for all low-income groups alongside transparent legislative language remains a critical consideration.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) proposing that military basic housing allowance not be considered in income calculations for tax purposes may lead to equity concerns or unintended advantages for certain groups who receive these allowances. This could raise significant ethical and financial issues as it might disproportionately benefit certain members of the Armed Forces compared to other low-income individuals not receiving such allowances.
The bill lacks transparency and clarity in Section 2(a)(2)(B) regarding the 'repeal of deadwood.' Striking of clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) without clear articulation of their content or implications may lead to legal ambiguities or unintended consequences that could affect stakeholders relying on these provisions.
The definition of 'large military installation' in Section 2(b)(1)(vi)(II) is based solely on a monetary threshold ($2,833,000,000), which might not fully capture other important elements defining the significance or operational scale of a military installation. This method could result in unfair or incomplete designation impacting developers or local communities financially.
The lack of detailed explanation regarding the connection between this Act and the 'Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2023' in Section 1(b) could lead to policy ambiguity. Without an explicit explanation, stakeholders may find it challenging to understand how these acts interact or complement each other, potentially affecting strategic planning and investment decisions.
There is potential for allocation issues due to the vague language in Section 2(b)(3) that states buildings need not be occupied solely by Armed Forces members. This lack of clarity on occupancy preferences might lead to confusion or disputes over housing allocations, affecting community and financial interests.
The effective date provisions in Section 2(a)(3) and 2(b)(2) do not align clearly with standard fiscal or project timelines, potentially causing logistical and financial uncertainty for projects underway or planned around military installations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; sense of Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The “Low Income Housing for Defense Communities Act” aims to provide more affordable housing options for military members. Congress believes that additional measures, like the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2023, should be taken to increase affordable housing investments and boost the supply of housing for families and workers in the U.S.
2. Tax incentives for rental housing for members of the Armed Forces Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill introduces tax incentives for rental housing for Armed Forces members by excluding the military basic housing allowance from income calculations for low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds. It also increases the low-income housing credit for buildings within 15 miles of large military installations and does not require these buildings to be occupied solely by military personnel.
Money References
- “(II) LARGE MILITARY INSTALLATION.—For purposes of this clause, the term ‘large military installation’ means any military installation with a total plant replacement value (as determined by the Secretary of the Defense) in excess of $2,833,000,000.”.