Creekside Ltd. Partnership v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Peter Graham

In Creekside Ltd. Partnership v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp., 482 P.3d 377 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a housing developer could not terminate the extended affordability period under its Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program development before the end of the 15-year extended affordability period when a condition of its acceptance into the program required waiving the Program’s qualified contract option. (Id. at 385). The Internal Revenue Code grants states the discretion to provide a qualified contract option for housing developers building low-income housing, allowing the developers to prematurely end affordability restrictions on their developments that had received federal tax credits. (Id. at 380). States mandating more stringent requirements than federally prescribed may decline providing the qualified contract option. (Id.). The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) allocates federal tax credits for low-income housing developments. (Id. at 380–81). AHFC offers developers extra points towards qualification if housing developers commit to low-income pricing on their developments for an additional 15 years beyond the federally required minimum. (Id. at 381). Creekside, a low-income housing developer, received tax credits for a development after submitting an application in which it claimed the extra qualifying points, though later attempted to invoke the qualified contract option. (Id. at 381–82). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying Creekside the option, reasoning that AHFC’s offer established more stringent requirements than federally mandated. (Id. at 383). Because of the heightened requirements and no contract language otherwise indicating that a qualified contract option was available, the supreme court determined that the contract between AHFC and Creekside did not grant Creekside a qualified contract option. (Id. at 383–85). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a housing developer could not terminate the extended affordability period under its Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program development before the end of the 15-year extended affordability period when a condition of its acceptance into the program required waiving the Program’s qualified contract option. (Id. at 385).

Creekside Ltd. Partnership v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Peter Graham

In Creekside Ltd. Partnership v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp., 482 P.3d 377 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a housing developer could not terminate the extended affordability period under its Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program development before the end of the 15-year extended affordability period when a condition of its acceptance into the program required waiving the Program’s qualified contract option. (Id. at 385). The Internal Revenue Code grants states the discretion to provide a qualified contract option for housing developers building low-income housing, allowing the developers to prematurely end affordability restrictions on their developments that had received federal tax credits. (Id. at 380). States mandating more stringent requirements than federally prescribed may decline providing the qualified contract option. (Id.). The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) allocates federal tax credits for low-income housing developments. (Id. at 380–81). AHFC offers developers extra points towards qualification if housing developers commit to low-income pricing on their developments for an additional 15 years beyond the federally required minimum. (Id. at 381). Creekside, a low-income housing developer, received tax credits for a development after submitting an application in which it claimed the extra qualifying points, though later attempted to invoke the qualified contract option. (Id. at 381–82). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying Creekside the option, reasoning that AHFC’s offer established more stringent requirements than federally mandated. (Id. at 383). Because of the heightened requirements and no contract language otherwise indicating that a qualified contract option was available, the supreme court determined that the contract between AHFC and Creekside did not grant Creekside a qualified contract option. (Id. at 383–85). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a housing developer could not terminate the extended affordability period under its Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program development before the end of the 15-year extended affordability period when a condition of its acceptance into the program required waiving the Program’s qualified contract option. (Id. at 385).