Investments, Equity Method and Joint Ventures

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Investments, Equity Method and Joint Ventures

Equity Method Investments Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 2 – Investments in and Advances to Local Limited Partnerships

As of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Partnership holds limited partnership interests in three and five Local Limited Partnerships, respectively. The Local Limited Partnerships own residential low income rental projects consisting of 115 and 162 apartment units at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The mortgage loans of these projects are payable to or insured by various governmental agencies.

The Partnership, as a limited partner, does not have a contractual relationship with the Local Limited Partnerships or exercise control over the activities and operations, including refinancing or selling decisions, of the Local Limited Partnerships that would require or allow for consolidation. Accordingly, the Partnership accounts for its investments in the Local Limited Partnerships using the equity method. The Partnership is allocated profits and losses of the Local Limited Partnerships based upon its respective ownership percentage (between 95% and 99%). Distributions of surplus cash from operations from most of the Local Limited Partnerships are restricted by the Local Limited Partnerships’ Regulatory Agreements with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). These restrictions limit the distribution to a portion, generally less than 10%, of the initial invested capital. The excess surplus cash is deposited into a residual receipts reserve, of which the ultimate realization by the Partnership is uncertain as HUD frequently retains it upon sale or dissolution of the Local Limited Partnership. The Partnership is allocated profits and losses and receives distributions from refinancings and sales in accordance with the Local Limited Partnerships’ partnership agreements. These agreements usually limit the Partnership’s distributions to an amount substantially less than its ownership percentage in the Local Limited Partnership. 

The individual investments are carried at cost plus the Partnership’s share of the Local Limited Partnership’s profits less the Partnership’s share of the Local Limited Partnership’s losses, distributions and impairment charges. The Partnership is not legally liable for the obligations of the Local Limited Partnerships and is not otherwise committed to provide additional support to them. Therefore, it does not recognize losses once its investment in each of the Local Limited Partnerships reaches zero.  Distributions from the Local Limited Partnerships are accounted for as a reduction of the investment balance until the investment balance is reduced to zero. When the investment balance has been reduced to zero, subsequent distributions received are recognized as income in the accompanying statements of operations. During each of the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, the Partnership received a distribution of approximately $4,000 from operations of one Local Limited Partnership.

For those investments where the Partnership has determined that the carrying value of its investments approximates the estimated fair value of those investments, the Partnership’s policy is to recognize equity in income of the Local Limited Partnerships only to the extent of distributions received and amortization of acquisition costs from those Local Limited Partnerships. Therefore, the Partnership limits its recognition of equity earnings to the amount it expects to ultimately realize.

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the investment balance in all of the Local Limited Partnerships had been reduced to zero.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, the Partnership advanced approximately $1,000 and $10,000 to one Local Limited Partnership, Better Housing Associates, to fund tax payments. While not obligated to make advances to any of the Local Limited Partnerships, the Partnership made these advances in order to protect its economic investment in the Local Limited Partnership. These amounts are included in advances made to Local Limited Partnership recognized as expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, as the investment balance in the Local Limited Partnership had been reduced to zero and the Partnership believes that the collection of these advances is doubtful. However, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Partnership received repayment of an advance of approximately $7,000 from the Local Limited Partnership as a result of the receipt of a refund from the taxing authority. This repayment is recognized as recovery of advance made to Local Limited Partnership previously recognized as expense. There were no repayments of advances during the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

The following are unaudited condensed combined estimated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 for the Local Limited Partnerships in which the Partnership has investments (2011 and 2010 amounts exclude the operations of Green Ko Enterprises LP and One Madison Avenue Associates due to the assignment of the Partnership’s interests in the Local Limited Partnerships in May and August 2011, respectively) (in thousands):

	Three Months Ended September 30,		Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011	2010	2011	2010
Revenues
Rental and other income	$   268	$   254	$   818	$   831
Expenses
Operating expense	158	195	527	606
Financial expenses	33	26	100	77
Depreciation and amortization     expenses	41	40	123	118
Total expenses	232	261	750	801
Income (loss) from continuing
operations	$    36	$    (7)	$    68	$    30

In addition to being the Corporate General Partner of the Partnership, NAPICO, or one of its affiliates, is the general partner and property management agent for one of the Local Limited Partnerships included above.  The Local Limited Partnership pays the affiliate property management fees in the amount of 5 percent of its gross rental revenue and data processing fees.  The amounts paid were approximately $17,000 and $13,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Green Ko Enterprises LP

In October 2009, the mortgage lender for Village of Albany filed an action against Green Ko Enterprises LP for alleged defaults under the loan encumbering the Local Limited Partnership’s property. On May 4, 2010, a foreclosure sale of the property was held and a third party submitted the successful bid in the amount of approximately $197,000. The Partnership received no proceeds from the foreclosure sale of the property. Green Ko Enterprises LP continued to own one additional investment property.

In May 2011, the Partnership assigned its limited partnership interest in Green Ko Enterprises LP to an affiliate of the Local Operating General Partner for approximately $63,000. The proceeds received of approximately $30,000, net of Wisconsin withholding taxes of approximately $33,000, were recorded as gain on sale of interest in Local Limited Partnership for the nine months ended September 30, 2011, as the Partnership’s investment balance in this Local Limited Partnership was zero at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

One Madison Avenue Associates

In August 2011, the Partnership assigned its limited partnership interest in One Madison Avenue Associates to a third party for approximately $75,000. The proceeds received were recorded as gain on sale of interest in Local Limited Partnership for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, as the Partnership’s investment balance in this Local Limited Partnership was zero at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

The current policy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) is to not renew the Housing Assistance Payment (“HAP”) Contracts on a long term basis on the existing terms.  In connection with renewals of the HAP Contracts under current law and policy, the amount of rental assistance payments under renewed HAP Contracts will be based on market rentals instead of above market rentals, which may be the case under existing HAP Contracts.  The payments under the renewed HAP Contracts may not be in an amount that would provide sufficient cash flow to permit owners of properties subject to HAP Contracts to meet the debt service requirements of existing loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration of HUD (“FHA”) unless such mortgage loans are restructured.  In order to address the reduction in payments under HAP Contracts as a result of this new policy, the Multi-family Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (“MAHRAA”) provides for the restructuring of mortgage loans insured by the FHA with respect to properties subject to the Section 8 program.  Under MAHRAA, an FHA-insured mortgage loan can be restructured into a first mortgage loan which will be amortized on a current basis and a low interest rate second mortgage loan payable to FHA which will only be payable on maturity of the first mortgage loan.  This restructuring results in a reduction in annual debt service payable by the owner of the FHA-insured mortgage loan and is expected to result in an insurance payment from FHA to

the holder of the FHA-insured loan due to the reduction in the principal amount. MAHRAA also phases out project-based subsidies on selected properties serving families not located in rental markets with limited supply, converting such subsidies to a tenant-based subsidy.

When the HAP Contracts are subject to renewal, there can be no assurance that the Local Limited Partnerships in which the Partnership has an investment will be permitted to restructure its mortgage indebtedness under MAHRAA.  In addition, the economic impact on the Partnership of the combination of the reduced payments under the HAP Contracts and the restructuring of the existing FHA-insured mortgage loans under MAHRAA is uncertain.