Indigo Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wash. App. 412 (2012)

Citation: Indigo Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wash. App. 412 (2012)
Parent Document: Indigo Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 169 Wash. App. 412 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2012-07-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4951771/indigo-real-estate-services-inc... ↗

Full Text

1,242 chars

In addition, Indigo admits that it received federal tax benefits based upon its participation in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, which is designed to promote the development of affordable rental housing for low income tenants. See 26 U.S.C. § 42. In order to claim this tax credit, Indigo was required to enter *420into an “extended low-income housing commitment” with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. 26 U.S.C. § 42(h)(6)(B). Such agreements stipulate that a landlord may not evict or terminate the tenancy of a low-income tenant, other than for good cause. 26 U.S.C. § 42(h)(6)(B)(i), (E)(ii). The Internal Revenue Service has explained that these protections apply even at the end of a lease period; when a lease term expires, the landlord may not fail to renew the lease except for good cause. See Rev. Rui. 2004-82, 2004-2 C.B. 350; see also Carter v. Md. Mgmt. Co., 377 Md. 596, 614, 835 A.2d 158 (2003) (“[A] voucher program tenant may not be evicted by a landlord who has qualified for a § 42 tax credit and is continuing to receive rent subsidies, either during the term of the lease or at the expiration of that term, except for conduct or circumstances that qualify under the Federal law as good cause”).

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text