SB1459 (Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act of 2025) edits the Internal Revenue Code to change how the historic rehabilitation tax credit (HTC) is claimed and used. It makes the full 20% rehabilitation credit available in the year the building is placed in service, creates an elective 30% credit for certain small projects (with $3.75M and $5M rural caps) that can be transferred, expands the pool of buildings that qualify, and removes a required reduction in basis tied to the credit.
The bill also narrows disqualified-lease rules for tax-exempt use property except for government entities.
These changes are designed to increase the bankability of HTC projects and steer more federal subsidy toward smaller and rural rehabilitations. The bill alters credit timing, transfer mechanics, eligibility thresholds, and tax accounting rules—each of which has practical effects for developers, investors, nonprofit owners, and tax advisers who structure historic rehab deals.
At a Glance
What It Does
Makes the full 20% rehab credit available when a property is placed in service; creates an elective 30% credit for qualifying small projects subject to caps ($3.75M non-rural; $5M rural) and a transfer regime; increases the percent-of-basis threshold that defines eligible buildings; and eliminates the statutory requirement to reduce basis when the credit is claimed.
Who It Affects
Owners and developers of historic properties, tax-credit investors and syndicators, state historic-preservation programs and nonprofit owners, and tax advisers who handle credit elections, transfers, and recapture exposure.
Why It Matters
By moving the credit to the year of service, adding a higher-rate option for small projects, and permitting transfers, the bill aims to unlock upfront capital and make projects more viable—especially in rural areas. Those gains come with new reporting, transfer mechanics, and shifts in tax accounting that change deal economics and IRS compliance priorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1459 rewrites how the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit is claimed and moved through transactions. First, it alters section 47(a) so the rehabilitation credit is recognized as 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures in the taxable year the building is placed in service, instead of spread across multiple years.
That change accelerates federal subsidy and raises the immediate tax equity available to developers.
The bill then creates a new elective regime for "qualifying small projects." A taxpayer can elect a 30 percent credit instead of 20 percent, but the election is limited by a per-project cap—$3.75 million of qualified expenditures for standard projects and $5.0 million for projects located in areas the bill defines as rural (based on Census urbanized area definitions). To support monetization, the statute authorizes transfers of those credits through a certificate that must carry specific information about transferor, transferee, project completion date, and credit amount; both parties must report the transfer to the IRS.
The text also disallows a deduction for amounts paid to buy the certificate and excludes transfer proceeds from gross income.Separately, the bill broadens the class of buildings that can qualify for the credit by changing the statutory test to reference "50 percent of the adjusted basis" in the applicable provision. The legislation also removes a long-standing requirement to reduce the adjusted basis of the property when the rehabilitation credit is claimed, and it adjusts the parallel rule where a lessee claims the credit so certain cross-references no longer apply.
Those moves change future depreciation calculations and the taxable gain/loss profile on disposition.Finally, the bill modifies treatment of tax-exempt use property by limiting the application of the disqualified-lease rules: for most tax-exempt entities (other than government entities), the determination whether property is tax-exempt use property ignores whether it is leased in a disqualified lease. That narrows circumstances in which a project is disqualified due to lease structure and can make nonprofit-led rehabs easier to finance.
The statute phases these changes into the code via effective-date clauses tied to property placed in service (some retroactive to post-2023 service dates, others to enactment).
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 allows the full 20% historic rehabilitation credit to be claimed in the taxable year the property is placed in service; that rule applies to property placed in service after December 31, 2023.
Section 3 creates an elective 30% credit for a "qualifying small project" capped at $3,750,000 of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (or $5,000,000 for projects in defined rural areas) and requires the building be placed in service after enactment and not have had credits in either of the two prior taxable years.
The bill permits transfer of a qualifying small-project credit via a transferable certificate; the certificate must include project completion date, transferor and transferee tax IDs, amounts transferred, and the certified historic-structure certification, and both parties must file IRS reports.
Section 4 alters the eligibility test by inserting "50 percent of" before "the adjusted basis," expanding the pool of buildings that can meet the statutory threshold for a qualified rehabilitated building.
Section 5 removes the statutory basis reduction that normally follows credit allowance for the rehabilitation credit and modifies parallel lessee-credit rules, changing depreciation and gain/loss tax calculations for credited property.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Full 20% credit in year placed in service
This provision rewrites the general rule so the rehabilitation credit equals 20% of qualified rehabilitation expenditures in the taxable year the property is placed in service. Practically, that accelerates recognition of the federal subsidy: developers and investors can claim the full federal amount up front rather than receive it over multiple years. The effective-date clause covers property placed in service after December 31, 2023, which creates immediate tax accounting implications for projects completed since that date.
30% elective credit for qualifying small projects and transferable certificates
This new subsection defines 'qualifying small projects' and permits taxpayers to elect a higher 30% credit subject to a cap on qualified expenditures ($3.75M or $5M in rural areas). It conditions eligibility on the building being placed in service after enactment and on no credit having been allowed for the building in either of the two prior taxable years. The section also sets a framework for transferring all or part of the credit through a mandatory certificate containing specified data and requires reporting by both transferor and transferee; it disallows a deduction for consideration paid for the certificate and excludes the transfer proceeds from gross income. The Secretary is instructed to issue regulations consistent with section 6418, and transferees receive the credit in the year of transfer. The statute attaches a special recapture rule: for applicable rural projects, the transferee is treated as the taxpayer for section 50 recapture purposes, which introduces new due-diligence and long-term compliance obligations for buyers.
Expands buildings that satisfy the statutory threshold
By inserting '50 percent of' before 'the adjusted basis,' the bill raises the threshold used to define certain eligible buildings under section 47(c). In practice, projects that previously fell short of the statutory test may now qualify, enlarging the inventory of buildings eligible for HTC-driven investment. Accountants and underwriters will need to update their eligibility screens and certification memos to reflect the revised percentage test.
Eliminates basis-reduction rule and adjusts lessee treatment
The bill adds an explicit exception to the section that normally requires basis reductions when a tax credit is claimed, excluding the rehabilitation credit from that adjustment. Removing the mandatory basis reduction means taxpayers keep a higher depreciable basis, which affects future depreciation deductions and the gain or loss on sale. The amendment to the lessee provision changes cross-references so that a credit claimed by a lessee won't trigger certain section 48(d)(5)(B) consequences. These are not merely mechanical edits: they shift the long-term tax economics of rehab projects and can alter how investors price credits and residual values.
Narrows disqualified-lease rules for tax-exempt use property
This change instructs that, except for government entities, the determination whether property is tax-exempt use property should ignore whether the property is leased under a 'disqualified lease' as defined in section 168(h). In short, most tax-exempt entities (for example, certain nonprofits) will not automatically disqualify a project because of lease arrangements that would otherwise be problematic. This reduces a structural financing barrier for nonprofit-led rehabs but leaves government-owned projects subject to the previous restrictions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small and medium developers of historic properties: The elective 30% rate and upfront credit improve cash flow for projects with qualified expenditures under the statutory caps, making smaller deals more viable.
- Rural property owners and communities: The higher $5 million cap for rural projects targets greater federal subsidy per project in non-urban areas, increasing the prospect of investment in towns and small cities.
- Tax-credit investors and syndicators able to buy transferable certificates: Transferability and exclusion from gross income for transfer proceeds create a clearer market mechanism for monetizing credits.
- Nonprofit owners (non-government tax-exempt entities): Narrowing the disqualified-lease rule reduces a common technical barrier that previously blocked some tax-exempt use projects from qualifying.
Who Bears the Cost
- Treasury/IRS (federal budget and administration): Accelerated credit recognition and expanded eligibility increase near-term outlays and will require the IRS to design reporting and oversight procedures for transfers.
- Credit purchasers and syndicators: Buyers will need enhanced due diligence and monitoring because transferees can inherit recapture exposure for certain rural projects, raising compliance costs.
- Owners and investors in larger projects: The focus on small-project incentives could shift investor appetite and pricing away from larger rehabilitation deals, potentially squeezing returns for big developers.
- Tax advisers and compliance teams: New election rules, certificate requirements, and reporting obligations create additional administrative work and professional liability if transfers are not properly executed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a classic policy trade-off: make the historic tax credit more immediately useful and easier to monetize to spur redevelopment (especially small and rural projects) versus protecting fiscal integrity and preventing subsidy duplication or abuse. Strengthening bankability reduces financing friction but raises questions about program cost, oversight burden, and whether expanded federal generosity overlaps with state incentives.
The bill simultaneously increases subsidy and loosens structural rules while adding a transfer mechanism that changes market dynamics. Accelerating the credit into the year placed in service and permitting a higher-rate small-project election increases immediate capital available to developers, but those benefits come at a fiscal cost and require robust IRS reporting and enforcement to prevent misuse.
The transfer certificate regime reduces barriers to monetization but creates a two-sided compliance burden: transferors must ensure their certificates are accurate and transferees must assume potential downstream recapture risk, particularly for rural projects where the transferee is deemed the taxpayer for recapture under section 50.
Removing the statutory basis reduction amplifies incentives by letting owners retain larger depreciable bases, which raises the after-tax return over the asset life and when sold. That outcome is economically significant but creates distributional questions: the federal government effectively allows taxpayers to claim both the credit and full depreciation on the same economic outlay, which increases the subsidy rate and complicates how state programs coordinate their own credits.
The definition of 'rural' tied to Census urbanized-area boundaries may also misalign with local funding needs and could exclude areas that practitioners would expect to qualify. Finally, the statutes delegate substantial detail to Treasury regulations (reporting, transfer mechanics, recapture rules aligned with section 6418), so many implementation details and anti-abuse safeguards will be set by rulemaking rather than statute.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.