[ Reply ]
From: Michael Hanley
email: mailto:mhanley@wnylc.com
link: http://
date: 6/30/0 17:44
Date: 12/21/00
Time: 11:40:11 AM
Remote Name: 207.251.188.199
Mac's revisions look good to me, with a couple of comments I'll post as a response to his message. One addition I would ask for as a way to give a foothold for owner's who don't want to deal with the bother of pursuing these cases, but who may feel they are legaly obligated to is to:
REVISE THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH OF CHAPTER 3, "Administrative and Legal Actions" AS FOLLOWS (the first two sentences are the same as the original, except that text in parenthesis is added, and text in brackets would be deleted):
"This section provides a brief description of the procedures that POAs can use (upon receiving independent verification of)[in response to discovering] unreported income and(confirming payment of)excess rental assistance based on existing regulations and rules. As noted in the Preface, for the first year of large scale CMIV, POAs should focus on the resolution of discrepancies and (NOT)[not] on the recovery of excess rental assistance. (Unless local procedures and guidelines require otherwise) [To the extent that local procedures and guidelines permit], HUD encourages POA flexibility in pursuing recovery of excess rental assistance."
NEW:
"POAs are reminded that the existence of discrepancies between incomes calculated for housing program purposes and household incomes reported by the IRS and the SSA do not, in and of themselves, establish that a tenant has failed to comply with HUD program requirements. Discrepancies between data sources will often be accounted for by variations in applicable reporting periods, valid exclusions from income, and changes in income not required to be reported on an interim basis. Additionally, discrepancies may occur as a result in situational variables, such as changes in household composition that are not reflected in the data comparison.
"POAs are additionally,reminded that even verified discrepancies do not, in and of themselves, establish the elements of intentional fraud that would require consideration of further action such as termination of assistance, referral for prosecution, and action to collect underpayments. See, e.g., Handbook 4350.3, 5-19(b)-(e).
"If after receiving notice of an income discrepancy through the Tenant Income Verification Program a POA concludes that the discrepancy might be attributable to variables such as those noted above, or that practical limitations on the POA's ability to reconstruct the exact cause or amount of the deficiency preclude a definitive resolution of the discrepancy, or the unlikelihood of reaching such a resoultion does not justify the expenditure of POA resources to to attempt to resolve the discrepancy, HUD does not require the POA to pursue repayment, or to take other administrative or legal actions. Only in egregious cases involving verified instances of intentional misrepresentation (fraud), is the POA obligated to refer the matter to the Inspector General. See 3.5 below."