DASH Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hoyle, Val T. [D-OR-4]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
The DASH Act proposes a comprehensive federal strategy to address housing affordability and homelessness through a combination of direct spending on housing programs and extensive tax incentives for renters, homebuyers, and housing developers.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the DASH Act, establishes and significantly expands several federal housing assistance programs and tax credits. It provides rental vouchers for homeless individuals and families, appropriates substantial funds for land acquisition and construction of affordable housing, creates a modular construction pilot program, and incentivizes pro-housing zoning development at the local level. Additionally, it introduces new tax credits for renters, middle-income housing, and neighborhood home development, alongside refundable credits for first-time homebuyers and various tax relief measures for homeowners.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill directly confronts the nation's severe housing crisis by expanding access to safe, affordable housing for vulnerable populations, including the homeless and those at risk. They contend that the combination of rental assistance, increased housing supply through various construction initiatives, and targeted tax relief will alleviate financial burdens on families, stimulate local economies, and promote stable homeownership, particularly in distressed communities. The bill's focus on innovative construction methods and pro-housing development is also cited as a way to address supply shortages efficiently.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that the bill's expansive scope and significant federal spending commitments could lead to substantial increases in the national debt and potentially distort housing markets. Concerns might be raised about the administrative complexity of implementing numerous new programs and tax credits, as well as the potential for federal overreach into traditionally local matters like zoning. Opponents may also argue that the proposed tax incentives could disproportionately benefit developers or higher-income individuals, or that the penalties for states failing to meet housing benchmarks are coercive.
This is a lengthy and complex bill, requiring substantial time for a thorough review to understand its numerous provisions and their interplay.
Sec. 101, Title I
Rental Vouchers for the Homeless
This section establishes a new program to provide rental vouchers for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness with incomes below 50% of the area median. It directly appropriates funds for these vouchers, starting with 250,000 in FY2026 and 400,000 annually thereafter, until the need is met. It also provides administrative fees for public housing agencies (PHAs) to cover ancillary costs like security deposits and mandates supportive services, including case management and referrals to health, substance use, and education services. States are held accountable for meeting benchmarks in housing homeless populations, with potential penalties involving federal highway funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a direct and necessary response to the homelessness crisis, providing immediate housing stability and crucial supportive services without imposing conditions like sobriety. The direct appropriation ensures consistent funding, and state accountability mechanisms will drive effective implementation.
Critics contend
Critics may raise concerns about the substantial cost of a universal voucher program and the administrative burden on PHAs. The penalties on states could be seen as federal overreach into state budgets, and some may question the effectiveness of a 'housing first' approach without mandatory service participation.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the urgent need for housing assistance with the administrative capacity of PHAs and states. It prioritizes a 'housing first' model, which may be at odds with approaches that condition housing on participation in services or sobriety. The use of federal highway funds as a penalty creates tension between housing policy and infrastructure funding.
Sec. 102, Title I
Land Acquisition and Construction for Affordable Housing
This section authorizes $10 billion annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2036 for the Housing Trust Fund, to be allocated to states for land acquisition and the development or rehabilitation of rental housing for very low-income or extremely low-income households. It also provides $65 million annually for state administrative needs. The Secretary of HUD is directed to propose revisions to the funding formula to better account for economic status, vacancy rates, homelessness rates, and the supply-demand gap for affordable housing.
Sec. 103, Title I
Modular Construction Pilot Program
This section establishes a pilot program offering grants to eligible entities (PHAs, tribal housing entities, nonprofits, companies, religious entities, local/Tribal governments) to promote affordable housing construction using modular methods. Grantees must guarantee affordability for over 20 years. Priority is given to projects building more than 50 units (or 30 units with expedited construction), partnering with PHAs for rental assistance, or providing supportive services. The program is authorized at $2 million annually for FY2026-2031, with a 75% federal cost share.
Sec. 104, Title I
Supporting Pro-Housing Development Grants and Zoning Reforms
This section establishes a competitive grant program for jurisdictions that adopt 'pro-housing' zoning and community planning methods. It prohibits jurisdictions from receiving these grants if they use certain 'prohibited' zoning methods, such as discouraging duplexes in single-family zones, single-room occupancy, or multifamily housing in commercial areas, or maintaining excessive parking requirements near transit. Encouraged methods include allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, incentivizing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), eliminating minimum lot sizes, and waiving fees for affordable units. The program is authorized at $4 billion annually for FY2026-2031.
Sec. 105, Title I
Permanent Authorization of Appropriations for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Grants
This section amends the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to permanently authorize 'such sums as may be necessary' for each fiscal year to carry out its programs. Previously, these authorizations were often time-limited or required periodic reauthorization.
Sec. 211, Title II
Renters Credit
This section establishes a new refundable tax credit for renters. The credit amount is the lesser of the 'qualified rental reduction amount' (applicable percentage of the difference between applicable rent and family rental payment) or the 'rental reduction credit amount' allocated by a state agency. The family rental payment is set at 30% of monthly family income or the applicable rent. States allocate these credits based on a new 'State rental reduction credit ceiling' and must establish reserves for adjustments. The credit includes tenant protections against displacement and requires compliance with fair housing laws.
Sec. 212, Title II
Middle-Income Housing Tax Credit
This section establishes a new tax credit, similar to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), but specifically for projects where 60% or more of residential units are rent-restricted and occupied by individuals whose income is 100% or less of the area median gross income. It provides a credit over a 15-year period for the qualified basis of such buildings, with higher percentages for new buildings and those in high-cost areas. The credit is allocated by state housing credit agencies and requires an 'extended middle-income housing commitment' to ensure long-term affordability.
Sec. 213, Title II
Neighborhood Homes Credit
This section establishes a new tax credit for the construction or substantial rehabilitation and affordable sale of qualified residences in distressed communities (qualified census tracts). The credit covers the difference between reasonable development costs and the sale price, up to 40% of eligible development costs or 32% of the national median sale price for new homes. It also includes a special application for owner-occupied rehabilitations. States allocate these credits, and a repayment mechanism is triggered if the home is sold within 5 years after the affordable sale.
Sec. 214, Title II
First-Time Homebuyer Refundable Credit
This section establishes a new refundable tax credit of up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers of a principal residence in the United States. The credit is phased out for higher purchase prices (above 60% of conforming loan limit) and higher modified adjusted gross incomes ($100,000 for individuals, $200,000 for joint filers). An election allows the credit to be transferred to an eligible mortgage lender, who then reduces the taxpayer's down payment by the credit amount, with advance payments from the Treasury to the lender.
Sec. 215, Title II
Losses from the Sale of Principal Residences
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers to deduct a 'qualified principal residence loss' from the sale or exchange of their principal residence. The loss is limited to $100,000 ($50,000 for married filing separately) and is phased out for higher modified adjusted gross incomes ($200,000 for individuals, $400,000 for joint filers). Rules similar to the Section 121 gain exclusion apply, including limitations on frequency and allocation to nonqualified use, and special rules for capital loss limitations.
Sec. 216, Title II
Repeal of Limitation on Personal Casualty Loss Deduction
This section repeals paragraph (5) of Section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently limits the deduction for personal casualty losses to those attributable to a federally declared disaster. The repeal would allow taxpayers to deduct personal casualty losses regardless of whether they occurred in a federally declared disaster area.
Sec. 217, Title II
Permanent Exclusion from Gross Income of Discharge of Qualified Principal Residence Indebtedness
This section makes permanent the exclusion from gross income for the discharge of qualified principal residence indebtedness. Previously, this exclusion was temporary and set to expire after December 31, 2025. This means that homeowners whose mortgage debt on their principal residence is forgiven will not have to count that forgiven amount as taxable income.
This subsection is a technical and conforming amendment that redesignates a newly added paragraph (22) in Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as paragraph (23), effective December 29, 2027, to accommodate another paragraph (22) added by a different public law.
Sec. 101(b), Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to resolve numbering conflicts when multiple bills amend the same section of code, ensuring proper statutory organization.
Case for: Ensures the proper codification of new statutory language, preventing confusion and maintaining a coherent legal framework.
Case against: No specific case against, as it's a technical correction.
Estimated impact: Minimal direct policy impact, primarily administrative and legal clarity.
This subsection modifies the calculation of the 'minimum purchase price' for a right of first refusal or purchase option under the LIHTC program. It strikes language that included 'adjusted investor equity' and 'other capital contributions' and replaces it with 'the principal amount of outstanding indebtedness secured by the building (other than indebtedness incurred within the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale to the tenants)'.
Sec. 207(c), Title II
Why it matters:This change is highly technical and likely intended to simplify or clarify the valuation process for affordable housing properties when a right of first refusal is exercised, potentially making it easier for non-profit entities or tenants to acquire properties at the end of the compliance period.
Case for: Simplifies the valuation process for affordable housing properties, potentially making it easier for mission-driven organizations or tenants to acquire properties at the end of the credit period, ensuring long-term affordability.
Case against: Could be argued that it reduces the return for original investors, potentially disincentivizing future investment in LIHTC projects if the exit value is significantly lowered.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on the financial viability and ownership structure of LIHTC projects at the end of their compliance periods.
This subsection clarifies that no provision of the Act shall prevent a state rental reduction credit agency from imposing fees to cover its costs or levying such fees on a taxpayer applying for or receiving a rental reduction credit amount.
Sec. 211(d), Title II
Why it matters:This is likely included to ensure states have the financial means to administer the new, complex Renters Credit program without needing additional federal appropriations for their administrative costs, or to prevent legal challenges to such fees.
Case for: Allows state agencies to recover administrative costs, ensuring the program can be effectively managed without draining state budgets or requiring additional federal funding for state administration.
Case against: Could impose additional costs on taxpayers (landlords) seeking to participate in the program, potentially reducing participation or indirectly impacting renters through higher rents to offset these fees.
Estimated impact: Modest financial impact on participating taxpayers and state agencies, but crucial for program sustainability.
This subsection mandates that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue maintain records of returns and return information for any taxpayer claiming the first-time homebuyer credit for the taxable year the credit is claimed and succeeding taxable years, in the individual master files of the IRS, notwithstanding normal limitations on assessment and collection under section 6501.
Sec. 214(f), Title II
Why it matters:The credit has a 5-year recapture period, and the IRS needs to track eligibility and potential recapture events over an extended period. This provision ensures the IRS retains the necessary data beyond the typical 3-year statute of limitations for assessment, which is crucial for enforcement and preventing fraud related to the credit's recapture rules.
Case for: Essential for the IRS to effectively administer and enforce the credit, particularly its recapture provisions, thereby protecting federal revenue and ensuring program integrity.
Case against: Could raise privacy concerns for taxpayers, as their return information related to this credit will be maintained for a longer period than typically required.
Estimated impact: Primarily administrative impact on the IRS, ensuring long-term data retention for compliance purposes. Minimal direct impact on taxpayers unless recapture is triggered.