FISCAL 2011 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2010 – Tax Services’ revenues decreased $62.9 million, or 2.1%, compared to the prior year.
Tax preparation fees decreased $61.0 million, or 3.1%, due primarily to the sale of companyowned offices to franchisees and the loss of certain clients as a result of not having a RAL offering in our tax offices in fiscal year 2011.
Although we gained clients through the free Federal EZ filing we began offering during fiscal year 2011, that increase did not have a significant impact on our revenues.
Royalties increased $28.6 million, or 10.4%, primarily due to the conversion of 280 company-owned offices into franchises.
Fees earned on RACs increased $94.1 million, or 107.5%, primarily due to an increase in the number of RACs issued as a portion of our clients chose to receive their refunds via RAC, as an alternative to a RAL.
RALs were historically offered to our clients by HSBC Holdings plc (HSBC).
In December 2010, HSBC terminated its contract with us based on restrictions placed on HSBC by its regulator and, therefore, RALs were not offered during the 2011 tax season.
Revenues of $17.2 million include the recognition of net deferred fees from HSBC.
This compares with revenues resulting from loans participations and related fees in fiscal year 2010 of $146.2 million.
Interest income earned on EAs increased $16.4 million, or 21.1%, over fiscal year 2010 primarily due to an increase in loan volume, which resulted from offering the product to a wider client base.
Total expenses increased $37.0 million, or 1.8%, compared to fiscal year 2010.
Compensation and benefits decreased $8.5 million, or 0.8%, primarily due to lower commission-based wages due to conversions to franchise offices, reduced headcount and related payroll taxes.
This decline was partially offset by severance costs and related payroll taxes of $27.4 million.
Occupancy costs declined $25.6 million, or 6.2%, due to office closures and cost-saving initiatives.
Bad debt expense increased $34.3 million, or 32.8%, primarily due to increased volumes on EAs, as well as a decline in tax returns prepared for those clients.
During fiscal year 2011, we recorded a $22.7 million impairment of goodwill in an ancillary reporting unit, as discussed in Item 8, note 7 to the consolidated financial statements.
Other expenses increased $11.5 million, or 4.9%, primarily due to incremental litigation expenses recorded in fiscal year 2011.
Pretax income for fiscal year 2011 decreased $99.9 million, or 11.5%, from 2010.
As a result of the declines in revenues and higher expenses, primarily bad debt expense and goodwill impairment, pretax margin for the segment decreased to 26.4% from 29.2% in fiscal year 2010.
CORPORATE, ELIMINATIONS AND INCOME TAXES ON CONTINUING OPERATIONS Corporate operating losses include net interest margin and gains or losses relating to mortgage loans held for investment, real estate owned and residual interests in securitizations, along with interest expense on borrowings and other corporate expenses.
## Table 0 ##
FISCAL YEAR 2012 COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2011 Interest income earned on mortgage loans held for investment decreased $4.4 million, or 17.7%, from the prior year, primarily as a result of declining rates and non-performing loans.
Our provision for loan losses decreased $11.5 million, or 32.3%, from the prior year as a result of the continued run-off of our portfolio.
Income Taxes on Continuing Operations Our effective tax rate for continuing operations in fiscal year 2012 was 39.9% compared to 37.5% in the prior year.
The higher effective tax rate was primarily due to increased tax expense related to changes in the value of investments held within company-owned life insurance (COLI) policies.
A portion of the increase related to COLI resulted from the decision to surrender COLI policies no longer required to support our deferred
NOTE 10: OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES We have deferred compensation plans that permit certain employees to defer portions of their compensation and accrue income on the deferred amounts.
Included in other noncurrent liabilities is $48.0 million and $142.0 million at April 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, reflecting our obligation under these plans.
The decline in the liability from the prior year is primarily due to amounts paid to former employees in connection with the sale of RSM.
We purchased whole-life insurance contracts on certain participants to recover distributions made or to be made under these plans.
The cash surrender value of the policies and other assets totaled $99.0 million and $105.0 million at April 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
These assets are restricted, as they are only available to fund the related liabilities.
Due to our plan to liquidate certain of these investments, at April 30, 2012, $81.4 million of these assets were classified as current and included in prepaid and other current assets on the consolidated balance sheet.
The remaining balance as of April 30, 2012, and the entire balance as of April 30, 2011, was included in other noncurrent assets on the consolidated balance sheets.
NOTE 11: FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT We use the following classification of financial instruments pursuant to the fair value hierarchy methodologies for assets measured at fair value:  Level 1 – inputs to the valuation are quoted prices in an active market for identical assets.
 Level 2 – inputs to the valuation include quoted prices for similar assets in active markets utilizing a third-party pricing service to determine fair value.
 Level 3 – valuation is based on significant inputs that are unobservable in the market and our own estimates of assumptions that we believe market participants would use in pricing the asset.
Financial instruments are broken down in the tables that follow by recurring or nonrecurring measurement status.
Recurring assets are initially measured at fair value and are required to be remeasured at fair value in the financial statements at each reporting date.
Assets measured on a nonrecurring basis are assets that, as a result of an event or circumstance, were required to be remeasured at fair value after initial recognition in the financial statements at some time during the reporting period.
The following table presents the assets that were remeasured at fair value on a recurring basis during the fiscal year ended April 30, 2012 and 2011 and the gains on those remeasurements:
## Table 1 ##
Our AFS securities are carried at fair value on a recurring basis.
These include certain agency and agencysponsored mortgage-backed securities and municipal bonds.
Quoted market prices are not available for these securities.
As a result, we use a third-party pricing service to determine fair value and classify the securities as Level 2.
The service’s pricing model is based on market data and utilizes available trade, bid and other market information for similar securities.
The fair values provided by third-party pricing service are reviewed and validated by management of HRB Bank.
There were no transfers of AFS securities between hierarchy levels during the fiscal years ended April 30, 2012 and 2011.
assumed validity rates and loss severities would result in losses beyond SCC’s accrual of approximately $31 million.
This sensitivity is hypothetical and is intended to provide an indication of the impact of a change in key assumptions on the representation and warranty claims liability.
In reality, changes in one assumption may result in changes in other assumptions, which could affect the sensitivity and the amount of losses.
A rollforward of our accrued liability for representation and warranty claims is as follows:
## Table 2 ##
During the second and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2012, SCC observed an increase in third-party activity.
As a result of this third-party activity, SCC’s estimate of probable claims increased from its prior expectations, resulting in additional loss provision of approximately $56 million.
These loss provisions were partially offset by changes in assumptions, including a decrease in the rate at which claims have been found to be valid, corresponding to recent trends in reviewed claims as described above, and a decrease in expected future claims related to NIM bonds that had matured, resulting in a net recorded loss provision in discontinued operations of $20.0 million.
During fiscal year 2011, SCC made payments totaling $49.8 million under an indemnity agreement dated April 2008 with a specific counterparty in exchange for a full and complete release of such party’s ability to assert representation and warranty claims.
The indemnity agreement was given as part of obtaining the counterparty’s consent to SCC’s sale of its mortgage servicing business in 2008.
SCC has no remaining payment obligations under this indemnity agreement.
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS – INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS – Losses may also be incurred with respect to indemnification claims by underwriters and depositors, and litigation claims by others, with respect to loans and securities SCC originated and sold, as discussed in note 19.
See discussion in note 20 below for indemnification obligations related to the sales of RSM and MCM.
NOTE 19: LITIGATION AND RELATED CONTINGENCIES We are a defendant in a large number of litigation matters, arising both in the ordinary course of business and otherwise, including as described below.
The matters described below are not all of the lawsuits to which we are subject.
In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive damages, are sought.
U. S.  jurisdictions permit considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief.
Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court.
In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters.
We believe that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value due to this variability in pleadings and our experience in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time.
The outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may be difficult to ascertain.
Among other things, uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law.
Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.
In addition to litigation matters, we are also subject to other claims and regulatory investigations arising out of our business activities, including as described below.
?
Secondary market same store communities are generally communities in markets with populations of more than 1 million but less than 1% of the total public multifamily REIT units or markets with populations of less than 1 million that we have owned and have been stabilized for at least a full 12 months.  ?
Non-same store communities and other includes recent acquisitions, communities in development or lease-up, communities that have been identified for disposition, and communities that have undergone a significant casualty loss.
Also included in non-same store communities are non-multifamily activities.
On the first day of each calendar year, we determine the composition of our same store operating segments for that year as well as adjust the previous year, which allows us to evaluate full period-over-period operating comparisons.
An apartment community in development or lease-up is added to the same store portfolio on the first day of the calendar year after it has been owned and stabilized for at least a full 12 months.
Communities are considered stabilized after achieving 90% occupancy for 90 days.
Communities that have been identified for disposition are excluded from the same store portfolio.
All properties acquired from Post Properties in the Merger remained in the Non-Same Store and Other operating segment during 2017, as the properties were recent acquisitions and had not been owned and stabilized for at least 12 months as of January 1, 2017.
For additional information regarding our operating segments, see Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Acquisitions One of our growth strategies is to acquire apartment communities that are located in various large or secondary markets primarily throughout the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United States.
Acquisitions, along with dispositions, help us achieve and maintain our desired product mix, geographic diversification and asset allocation.
Portfolio growth allows for maximizing the efficiency of the existing management and overhead structure.
We have extensive experience in the acquisition of multifamily communities.
We will continue to evaluate opportunities that arise, and we will utilize this strategy to increase our number of apartment communities in strong and growing markets.
We acquired the following apartment communities during the year ended December 31, 2017:
## Table 3 ##
Dispositions We sell apartment communities and other assets that no longer meet our long-term strategy or when market conditions are favorable, and we redeploy the proceeds from those sales to acquire, develop and redevelop additional apartment communities and rebalance our portfolio across or within geographic regions.
Dispositions also allow us to realize a portion of the value created through our investments and provide additional liquidity.
We are then able to redeploy the net proceeds from our dispositions in lieu of raising additional capital.
In deciding to sell an apartment community, we consider current market conditions and generally solicit competing bids from unrelated parties for these individual assets, considering the sales price and other key terms of each proposal.
We also consider portfolio dispositions when such a structure is useful to maximize proceeds and efficiency of execution.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we disposed of five multifamily properties totaling 1,760 units and four land parcels totaling approximately 23 acres.
Development As another part of our growth strategy, we invest in a limited number of development projects.
Development activities may be conducted through wholly-owned affiliated companies or through joint ventures with unaffiliated parties.
Fixed price construction contracts are signed with unrelated parties to minimize construction risk.
We typically manage the leasing portion of the project as units become available for lease.
We may also engage in limited expansion development opportunities on existing communities in which we typically serve as the developer.
While we seek opportunistic new development investments offering attractive long-term investment returns, we intend to maintain a total development commitment that we consider modest in relation to our total balance sheet and investment portfolio.
During the year ended December 31, 2017, we incurred $170.1 million in development costs and completed 7 development projects.

<table><tr><td> Corporate – Operating Results</td><td></td><td></td><td rowspan="2">(in 000s) 2010</td></tr><tr><td>Year ended April 30,</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>Interest income on mortgage loans held for investment</td><td>$20,322</td><td>$24,693</td><td>$31,877</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>11,071</td><td>7,926</td><td>7,706</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenues</td><td>31,393</td><td>32,619</td><td>39,583</td></tr><tr><td>Interest expense</td><td>83,658</td><td>84,288</td><td>79,929</td></tr><tr><td>Provision for loan losses</td><td>24,075</td><td>35,567</td><td>47,750</td></tr><tr><td>Other, net</td><td>51,592</td><td>52,559</td><td>55,852</td></tr><tr><td>Total expense</td><td>159,325</td><td>172,414</td><td>183,531</td></tr><tr><td>Pretax loss</td><td>$-127,932</td><td>$-139,795</td><td>$-143,948</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td colspan="3">(dollars in 000s)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Total</td><td>Level 1</td><td></td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td></td><td>Gains</td></tr><tr><td>As of April 30, 2012:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage–backed securities</td><td>$366,683</td><td> $ –</td><td> </td><td>$366,683</td><td> $ –</td><td> </td><td>$5,499</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal bonds</td><td>5,669</td><td> –</td><td> </td><td>5,669</td><td> –</td><td> </td><td>425</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$372,352</td><td> $ –</td><td> </td><td>$372,352</td><td> $ –</td><td> </td><td>$5,924</td></tr><tr><td>As a percentage of total assets</td><td>8.0%</td><td> –</td><td> %</td><td>8.0%</td><td> –</td><td> %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>As of April 30, 2011:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mortgage–backed securities</td><td>$158,177</td><td>$ –</td><td></td><td>$158,177</td><td>$ –</td><td></td><td>$207</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal bonds</td><td>8,740</td><td>–</td><td></td><td>8,740</td><td>–</td><td></td><td>405</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$166,917</td><td>$ –</td><td></td><td>$166,917</td><td>$ –</td><td></td><td>$612</td></tr><tr><td>As a percentage of total assets</td><td>3.2%</td><td>–%</td><td></td><td>3.2%</td><td>–%</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended April 30,</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of the year:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amount related to representation and warranty claims</td><td>$126,260</td><td>$138,415</td><td>$156,659</td></tr><tr><td>Amount related to indemnity agreement dated April 2008</td><td>–</td><td>49,785</td><td>49,936</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>126,260</td><td>188,200</td><td>206,595</td></tr><tr><td>Changes:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Provisions</td><td>20,000</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Payments on representation and warranty claims</td><td>-16,242</td><td>-12,155</td><td>-18,244</td></tr><tr><td>Payments under indemnity agreement dated April 2008</td><td>–</td><td>-49,785</td><td>-151</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of the year:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amount related to representation and warranty claims</td><td>130,018</td><td>126,260</td><td>138,415</td></tr><tr><td>Amount related to indemnity agreement dated April 2008</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>49,785</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$130,018</td><td>$126,260</td><td>$188,200</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Community</td><td>Market</td><td>Units</td><td>Closing Date</td></tr><tr><td>Charlotte at Midtown</td><td>Nashville, TN</td><td>279</td><td>March 16, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Acklen West End</td><td>Nashville, TN</td><td>320</td><td>December 28, 2017</td></tr></table>

Question: what is the number of units necessary to stabilize the acklen west end community?
Answer: 288.0