Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny interest and depreciation deductions for taxpayers owning 50 or more single family properties.
ELI5 AI
The Stop Predatory Investing Act wants to change the rules so that people who own lots of houses (50 or more) can't get certain money breaks, like not having to pay as much tax on interest and wear and tear. This is to make sure big landlords can't take unfair advantage and make housing tricky for others.
Summary AI
H.R. 9937, known as the “Stop Predatory Investing Act,” seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to prevent certain large property owners from benefiting from tax deductions. Specifically, it disallows interest and depreciation deductions for taxpayers who own 50 or more single family residential rental properties. There are exceptions to this rule, such as when properties are sold as primary residences or to qualified nonprofit organizations. The bill targets landlords with extensive property portfolios to curtail predatory real estate practices.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Stop Predatory Investing Act," aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It seeks to disallow interest and depreciation deductions for taxpayers who own 50 or more single-family rental properties. This legislative proposal targets large-scale landlords, primarily to curb predatory investment practices in the residential real estate market. The Act includes specific provisions that encourage owners to sell these properties to individuals for residential use or to qualified nonprofit organizations focused on affordable housing.
Key Issues Identified
One major issue with the bill is the definition of a "disqualified single family property owner," which refers to those owning 50 or more properties. The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes ownership—whether by percentage, control rights, or another metric—could lead to inconsistent enforcement and understanding of the law.
The bill might inadvertently encourage rapid sale of properties. Landlords could feel rushed to sell their holdings to avoid losing out on tax benefits. This could destabilize rental markets and affect housing availability, particularly if there is increased turnover in property ownership.
The definition of "qualified nonprofit organization" is narrowly tailored, potentially excluding entities that also contribute to affordable housing but don't fit the defined criteria. This selectivity might result in perceived inequities among different types of nonprofit entities.
Furthermore, tax aggregation rules and multiple cross-references to other sections of the tax code make the bill complex and potentially confusing for those seeking to comply. These sections require careful interpretation, which might pose challenges for taxpayers, especially those with less familiarity with the intricacies of tax law.
Potential Impacts on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly speaking, the bill seeks to address housing affordability by discouraging large-scale property accumulation by investors. If effectively implemented, it could help reduce rental inflation driven by investment demand. However, this outcome is not guaranteed and depends on market dynamics and the specific response of investors to the legislation.
For the public, especially renters, this policy could potentially lower rental prices if large landlords are incentivized to sell properties to individual homeowners or nonprofits providing affordable housing. This shift might reduce the number of rental properties owned by large enterprises, which could democratize property ownership and increase housing stability over time.
For landlords owning large portfolios of single-family rental properties, the bill represents a significant financial challenge. They would lose tax deductions for interest and depreciation, likely impacting their investment returns. This change might force some landlords to reconsider their property holdings strategy, potentially leading to increased sales of single-family homes.
Nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing could benefit, particularly those fitting the definition outlined in the bill. These organizations might see more opportunities to acquire properties as large landlords adjust their holdings in response to the new tax landscape.
Overall, while the bill might help address concerns related to predatory housing investments and improve affordability, its success is contingent upon how clearly it is implemented and enforced, as well as how different market participants react to these changes.
Issues
The term 'disqualified single family property owner' requires clarification regarding whether ownership is determined by percentage, control rights, or some other measure. This lack of precise definition could lead to ambiguity and inconsistent application (Section 2 and Section 3).
The bill might unintentionally encourage the rapid sale of properties to avoid tax consequences. This could impact housing stability if property owners are compelled to sell quickly to preserve interest and depreciation deductions (Section 2).
The definition of 'qualified nonprofit organization' in Section 2 may favor certain types of entities, potentially excluding others that contribute to affordable housing but do not meet the criteria. This selective definition could lead to perceived inequities among nonprofit entities.
The aggregation rules in Section 2 involving references to multiple tax code sections can be complex and difficult for taxpayers to interpret. This complexity may lead to challenges in determining taxpayer classification accurately.
The use of cross-references to other sections of the tax code (such as section 163(n), section 121, etc.) across Sections 2 and 3 makes the bill difficult to understand without consulting these additional provisions, potentially hindering compliance clarity.
The Secretary is tasked with prescribing regulations to implement parts of the bill, but as these are not yet issued, there could be uncertainty and delays in compliance and understanding of the bill's implications (Sections 2 and 3).
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 Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states that the Act can be referred to as the “Stop Predatory Investing Act.”
2. Disallowance of interest deduction for disqualified single family property owners Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section introduces a rule prohibiting certain large landlords, defined as those owning 50 or more single-family rental properties, from deducting interest expenses related to these properties when filing taxes. However, this rule doesn't apply if the landlord sells the property to someone who will live in it or to a nonprofit organization dedicated to affordable housing.
3. Disallowance of depreciation in connection with property used by disqualified single family property owners Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the Internal Revenue Code is changed so that certain property owners, known as "disqualified single family property owners," cannot claim a depreciation deduction for their single family rental properties. However, there is an exception if the property is sold for use as a personal home or to a qualified nonprofit organization.