24 C.F.R. § 5.233

Mandated use of HUD's Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) System

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Programs subject to this section and requirements. (1) The requirements of this section apply to entities administering assistance under the:

(i) Public Housing program under 24 CFR part 960;

(ii) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program under 24 CFR part 982;

(iii) Moderate Rehabilitation program under 24 CFR part 882;

(iv) Project-based Voucher program under 24 CFR part 983;

(v) Project-based Section 8 programs under 24 CFR parts 880, 881, 883, 884, 886, and 891;

(vi) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q);

(vii) Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013);

(viii) Sections 221(d)(3) and 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(3) and 1715z-1); and

(ix) Rent Supplement program under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s).

(2) Processing entities must use HUD's EIV system in its entirety:

(i) As a third-party source to verify tenant employment and income information during annual and streamlined reexaminations of family composition and income, in accordance with § 5.236 and administrative guidance issued by HUD; and

(ii) To reduce administrative and subsidy payment errors in accordance with HUD administrative guidance.

(b) Penalties for noncompliance. Failure to use the EIV system in its entirety may result in the imposition of sanctions and/or the assessment of disallowed costs associated with any resulting incorrect subsidy or tenant rent calculations, or both.

[74 FR 68934, Dec. 29, 2009, as amended at 88 FR 9655, Feb. 14, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2015–2015 · leading case: Inkster Hous. Comm'n v. Towana R Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Inkster Hous. Comm'n v. Towana R Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “Plaintiff alleged that this situation violated defendant’s lease as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) multi-subsidy regulation, 24 CFR § 5.233 . Defendant did not present any evidence or witnesses, but argued that she had legal custody of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.