The IRS today issued Rev. Rul. 2006-27, 2006-22 I.R.B. ___ (May 22, 2006), ruling that organizations that provide seller-funded down-payment assistance to home buyers do not qualify as tax-exempt charities. From I.R. 2006-74:
Down-payment-assistance programs provide cash assistance to homebuyers who cannot afford to make the minimum down payment or pay the closing costs involved in obtaining a mortgage. Such programs can qualify as tax-exempt charitable and educational organizations under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) when properly structured and operated. In Revenue Ruling 2006-27, released today, the IRS provides a detailed discussion of the guidelines – including two examples that meet – and one that fails to meet – the tests for exemption.
The ruling makes it clear that seller-funded programs are not charities because they do not meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). Increasingly, the IRS has found that organizations claiming to be charities are being used to funnel down-payment assistance from sellers to buyers through self-serving, circular-financing arrangements. In a typical scheme, there is a direct correlation between the amount of the down-payment assistance provided to the buyer and the payment received from the seller. Moreover, the seller pays the organization only if the sale closes, and the organization usually charges an additional fee for its services.




4 responses to “IRS: Organizations that Provide Seller-Funded Down-Payment Assistance to Home Buyers Are Not Tax-Exempt Charities”
IRS: DOWN-PAYMENT ASSISTANCE OUTFITS AREN’T CHARITIES
The IRS has ruled that seller-funded down-payment assistance oufits are not tax-exempt charities (Rev. Rul. 2006-27). We had our doubts…
IRS: DOWN-PAYMENT ASSISTANCE OUTFITS AREN’T CHARITIES
The IRS has ruled that seller-funded down-payment assistance oufits are not tax-exempt charities (Rev. Rul. 2006-27). We had our doubts…
This is long overdue. The very notion that these are anything other than sham transactions is laughable.
This is long overdue. The very notion that these are anything other than sham transactions is laughable.