"The QAP says my Carryover Allocation Agreement is due November 1st, but OHCS's own fee schedule only starts charging a late-carryover fee for filings received after December 1st — which date is actually the one that puts my reservation at risk, and does the 10 percent test's twelve-month clock even run from either of them?"
The 9% Carryover Allocation Agreement and its 10 percent test
Once OHCS selects a project for a 9% credit allocation, the 2025 QAP requires the Applicant to submit, on or before November 1 of the LIHTC Allocation Authority Year, either an application for a Carryover Allocation (if the project is still under construction) or a final application showing the project has already been placed in service. Carryover Allocations are made on a per-project, lump-sum basis; the actual credit available to any specific building within the project is apportioned from that lump sum only once the building itself satisfies the placed-in-service requirements described below.
Within 12 months of the date of the Carryover Allocation Agreement itself — the agreement's own execution date, not the earlier reservation date — the Applicant must demonstrate to OHCS's satisfaction that it has incurred more than 10 percent of the project's reasonably expected basis, certified by a CPA. If any portion of the developer fee or consultant fees is itemized to help satisfy that 10 percent, the CPA certification must break down the services each consultant performed and the fee apportioned to each, backed by copies of every developer and consultant contract. OHCS may demand additional documentation and may exclude any cost it cannot determine to be reasonable and appropriate.
A November 1 deadline, a December 1 late fee: a discrepancy this guide is flagging, not resolving
OHCS's own fee schedule ("OHCS Charges Combined," last updated May 2026) lists a "9% Late Carryover" charge of $1,000 plus $200 per business day (plus $100 per hour for any required re-evaluation) that applies specifically "if carryover app is received after Dec. 1." That is a full month later than the QAP's own stated November 1 deadline for the same filing. Neither the QAP nor the fee schedule explains the gap — it is not stated as a grace period, an administrative buffer, or a typo in either document as reviewed for this guide. A developer should confirm directly with OHCS which date actually governs a specific project's Carryover filing before treating either one as a safe margin, rather than assuming the later, fee-schedule date extends the QAP's own deadline.
The credit exchange ("credit swap"): returning and refreshing a reservation, once
OHCS may exchange an Applicant's credit reservation from one allocation year to the next at the same dollar amount — also called a credit swap or credit refresh — but only on a showing of good cause, and limited to one return per application. The request must reach OHCS no later than March 31 of the year following the original reservation. The QAP's own example: a project awarded a forward reservation of 2026 credits that will not place in service by December 31, 2028 may, if it shows good cause by March 31, 2026, swap those 2026 credits for a 2027 allocation to reach a December 31, 2029 placed-in-service date instead. Once credits are returned, a project may apply for additional LIHTC, but must still comply with every requirement and representation made in its original award year unless OHCS specifically and explicitly waives them.
Placed-in-service, Form 8609, and OHCS's own late-filing fee
Every LIHTC project must complete a final application before OHCS will issue IRS Form 8609. That package must include an independent CPA's cost-certification report and certificates of occupancy for every building in the project, and must reach OHCS at least 60 days before the Owner expects to receive Form 8609 — OHCS processes and issues 8609s throughout the year rather than on a fixed cycle, and reserves the right to set its own review schedule. Any changes from the equity closing must be brought back to OHCS for review and approval before 8609 issuance, and projects with excess funds at completion must return them, with OHCS resources given priority for repayment.
| Charge | Amount | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| 9% Reservation | 9.5% of the annual allocation | Charged at closing |
| 4% Reservation | 12% of the annual allocation | Charged at closing |
| 9% Late Carryover | $1,000 + $200/business day (+$100/hour for re-evaluation) | Carryover application received after Dec. 1 (see discrepancy noted above) |
| LIHTC Late Submittal, Final Application | $1,000 + $100/month (+$100/hour for re-evaluation) | More than 120 days after placed-in-service |
| Recipient charge | $1,000 (≤$300k); $2,000 (>$300k); $2,500 (>$300k with LIHTC) | After a funding reservation issues; invoiced at closing |
| LIHTC compliance monitoring | $40/unit/year for the first 15 years; $30/unit/year after | Annual, for 4% and 9% projects (monitoring charges are not stacked — the largest eligible charge applies if multiple funding sources overlap) |
Revocation, remedies, and Oregon's own protest/appeal rules
The QAP's Violations section authorizes OHCS to invoke its Remedies if an Applicant fails to comply with any Program Requirement (including timely fee payment or document recording), makes a material misrepresentation, is debarred or otherwise disqualified, or defaults on any Program obligation. Applicants and related parties — including lenders and tax credit investors — expressly waive any claim against OHCS for exercising these remedies as a condition of filing an application. The Remedies themselves span eight distinct tools: cancellation of an application; revocation or modification of an allocation or other OHCS award; debarment from OHCS programs; recoupment of allocated or disbursed resources; specific enforcement; actions for direct, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages; appointment of a project receiver; and foreclosure of secured interests.
The ORCA Manual's own Reservation of Discretionary Authority section extends this scrutiny beyond the applicant entity itself: OHCS may reject or deny funding to any applicant whose owner, principal, agent, consultant, or other participant has been party to an incomplete or noncompliant project, failed to cure noncompliance within an applicable cure period, been debarred by any government or housing finance agency, been convicted of fraud or a crime of moral turpitude within 10 years, or been through bankruptcy within 5 years — grounds that reach the whole development team, not only the named applicant.
Unlike a QAP that describes no appeal mechanism at all, Oregon's ORCA Manual expressly points an applicant seeking to challenge a funding process, funding decision, or enforcement action to Oregon's own administrative rules: OAR 813-002-0040 (Protests and Judicial Review of Funding Process), OAR 813-002-0045 (Protests and Judicial Review of Funding Decisions), and OAR 813-002-0050 (Protests and Judicial Review of Enforcement Action). Certain OHCS reservations, allocations, or awards are also subject to review by the Housing Stability Council under ORS 456.561.
The one extension Oregon documents — and the one it doesn't
The QAP's general Project Performance Guidelines allow exactly one applicant-requested 30-day extension to the financial close date, per project — a general ORCA provision that applies across OHCS resources, not something specific to the federal 9% Carryover or 10 percent test deadlines. Separately, the standard ORCA Reservation Letter issued at the Commitment step requires financial closing within 6 months of issuance, or the resource commitment is rescinded and the project returns to the Financial Eligibility step.
Neither the 2025 QAP nor the ORCA Manual, as reviewed for this guide, describes any separate extension mechanism for the federal Carryover Allocation Agreement deadline or the 10 percent test itself — only the general 30-day financial-closing extension above. A developer facing a genuine risk of missing the 10 percent test, or the November 1 (or December 1) Carryover filing date, should confirm directly with OHCS whether any case-by-case accommodation exists beyond what these documents state, rather than assume the general 30-day extension reaches those specific federal deadlines.
Every reservation, Carryover Allocation, and placed-in-service allocation carries the same disclaimer regardless of stage: issuance "shall not constitute or be construed as a representation or warranty as to the feasibility or viability of the Project" — OHCS's approval at any point in this process is not a certification that the deal will actually work.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming the QAP's November 1 Carryover deadline and the fee schedule's "after Dec. 1" late-fee trigger describe the same date. They are a month apart in OHCS's own documents, and neither explains the gap — confirm directly with OHCS which one actually governs a given project before relying on either as a safe margin.
- Starting the 10 percent test's 12-month clock from the reservation or REUA date instead of the Carryover Allocation Agreement's own execution date. The QAP ties the 12 months explicitly to "the date of the Carryover Allocation Agreement," which is later than the original reservation date.
- Assuming the general ORCA "one 30-day extension to the financial close date" also covers the federal 9% Carryover Allocation Agreement or 10 percent test deadlines. That extension sits under the QAP's general Project Performance Guidelines; no parallel extension mechanism for the Carryover Allocation Agreement or 10 percent test itself is described in the QAP or ORCA Manual as reviewed for this guide.
- Treating a credit exchange ("swap") as freely available. It requires OHCS-determined good cause, is capped at one return per application, and the request must reach OHCS no later than March 31 of the year following the original reservation.
- Assuming the late-final-application fee is a per-day charge like the late-carryover fee. It is a flat $1,000 plus $100 per month (plus $100/hour for any re-evaluation), triggered specifically at more than 120 days after placed-in-service — a different structure from the late-carryover fee's $200-per-business-day rate.
- Assuming a debarment, noncompliance, or bankruptcy history disqualifies only the specific entity involved. Both the QAP's Project/Request Denial section and the ORCA Manual's Reservation of Discretionary Authority section extend that scrutiny to any owner, principal, agent, consultant, lender, or investor tied to the applicant — not just the named applicant entity.
- Assuming Oregon has no formal appeal process for a revoked or denied reservation. Oregon's ORCA Manual expressly points applicants to OAR 813-002-0040, -0045, and -0050 governing protests and judicial review of funding process, funding decisions, and enforcement actions — a codified path many other states' QAPs do not describe at all.
- Reading an OHCS reservation, Carryover Allocation, or placed-in-service allocation as a warranty that the project is feasible. The QAP states explicitly, at every one of those stages, that issuance is not a representation or warranty as to the project's feasibility or viability.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies