Baker Tilly Buzzhouse Podcast: What 2025 Could Bring for Housing Tax Policy
Baker Tilly's podcast series specifically for professionals in the multifamily housing industry
On this episode of BuzzHouse, Don Bernards and Garrick Gibson sit down with Thom Amdur, Senior Vice President of Policy and Impact at Lincoln Avenue Communities. Thom shares what he's tracking on Capitol Hill and what could be coming next for affordable housing, tax reform and federal regulation. From the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to changes in NEPA and Davis-Bacon, he breaks down the legislative and administrative shifts likely to impact developers, investors and housing professionals heading further into 2025.
Multifamily housing resources
For articles, webinars and additional resources for developers, housing authorities, property managers, state housing credit agencies and lenders, visit our multifamily housing page.
For more information on this topic, or to learn how Baker Tilly specialists can help, contact our team.
Visit 3BL Media to see more multimedia and stories from Baker Tilly
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
5 hours ago
- Axios
How Columbus is helping residents get tech savvy
Smart Columbus wants to give free digital skills training to 10,000 Central Ohioans by the end of 2027 through a new program announced Thursday. Why it matters: The nonprofit estimates 75% of jobs will require advanced digital skills by 2030. The employment gap is widening for people without them. Threat level: Around 80,000 households in the region also lack internet access, and thousands more don't have a device beyond a smartphone. What they're doing: To close the digital divide, Smart Columbus is launching the ConnectUs Digital Skills Hub. The collaboration is between 16 community partners that will train residents and give them a free large-screen device, such as a laptop or tablet, upon completion. Outreach will focus on those facing housing insecurity, older adults, veterans, people with disabilities, students and new Americans. Flashback: "This problem became unignorable during the pandemic," Smart Columbus executive director Jordan Davis tells Axios. "So many families weren't able to connect to online learning or telehealth or virtual work." That observation prompted a pilot in 2022 that has since helped 1,000 people with training and free devices. The latest: The full-scale program features courses taught by leaders of the community partners, including Goodwill, Columbus Metropolitan Library, Columbus State Community College, Jewish Family Services and the New Directions Career Center. The hope is to tailor the program to the specific needs of their respective communities. For example, immigrants may have different challenges with tech than a group of older adults. What they're saying: Tech-savvy residents may find tasks like applying for a job or accessing an online benefits portal simple, but Davis emphasizes the difference such skills could make to others. "People take the basics for granted. Exposing people to the fact that it's okay to acknowledge where you're at and get help is a big part of this awareness journey," he says. Classes are approachable, because "there's a lot of shame that people carry not knowing how to work technology," he adds. What's next: The program may be out of the "pilot" stage, but Davis says it will continue to evolve and grow.
Fast Company
7 hours ago
- Fast Company
Supreme Court rewrites NEPA rules—changing the game for environmental reviews
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways, and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions —until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting—the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. Taking a big-picture look NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy, and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests—for a glass of milk, a napkin, and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls, and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. Biggest NEPA case in decades On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court (minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself) decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line—such as spurring new oil drilling—and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far-flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evaluate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. A resounding declaration Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a ' legislative acorn ' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction . . . to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry . . . (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm, no foul' rule, under which 'even if an [environmental impact statement] falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. A split court Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider, and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
US senator stuns with politically risky opinion piece in local newspaper: 'It's time for Congress to act'
The junior U.S. senator for Utah has turned heads with a surprising op-ed in favor of retaining some Biden-era renewable-energy tax credits. Writing in Deseret News, John Curtis urged his Republican colleagues not to "pull the rug out from under American innovators" who "have already made billions in long-term investments based on these policies." When then-President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law in 2022, it included the U.S. government's largest-ever investment in clean-energy technology, according to law firm Baker Tilly. The law contained billions of dollars in tax credits and other incentives aimed at spurring investment in everything from massive renewable-energy power plants to electric vehicles. Now these programs are under threat as Congress considers President Donald Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill," a version of which has passed the House of Representatives and is under consideration by the Senate. Under the version passed by the Republican-led House, the investment in America's renewable-energy future has been significantly curtailed. Gone at the end of 2025 would be the IRA's Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit, tax credits for clean vehicles, and a number of tax credits aimed at making homes more energy efficient, according to law firm Pierson Ferdinand. The programs originally were scheduled to last at least until 2032. This context makes the timing of Senator Curtis' op-ed all the more significant. "Some conservatives understandably want to end the energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act," Curtis wrote. "But we must be wise — we simply cannot afford to treat good policy ideas as guilty by political association." Curtis has long had an open mind about money-saving, efficient appliances, not falling into the trap of letting them be politicized; in 2023, he showed The Cool Down some of the ones he installed in his own home, including solar panels and top-tier insulation. The IRA represented a historic investment in transitioning our energy economy away from dirty fuels such as oil, coal, and gas that release heat-trapping pollution and toward a renewable-energy future. While the impact of many IRA-based investments, such as those in clean-energy power plants, would not be felt for years, others, such as the consumer tax credits, were having an immediate impact. Do you think the federal government should give us tax breaks to improve our homes? Definitely Only for certain upgrades Let each state decide instead No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Per the IRS, under the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credit, homeowners can recover 30% of the cost of installing energy-saving windows, exterior doors, and skylights, up to $1,200 annually. The same goes for the cost of new, energy-efficient central air conditioners, water heaters, furnaces, boilers, and heat pumps. Similarly, the IRA's clean vehicle tax credits allow individuals to recover up to $7,500 on the cost of a new electric vehicle or up to $4,000 on a used EV. These tax credits have saved everyday Americans thousands of dollars, allowing families to upgrade their homes and vehicles while also reducing the amount of planet-warming pollution entering the atmosphere. Under the version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the House of Representatives, all of these incentives would go away at the end of the year. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
