First Annual Report on the Economic Impact 

of the Federal Historic Tax Credit

THE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT COALITION

MARCH 2010

Carpenter Center for the Performing Arts, Richmond, Virginia
The Historic Tax Credit Coalition, The National Trust Community 

Investment Corporation, and Rutgers University wish to acknowledge 

the research assistance of the Technical Preservation Services group 

of the National Park Service and the National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Ocers, without which this report would not 

have been possible.
EXECUTIVE SYNTHESIS

1

CUPR is a unit in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

This study examines the background and evolution of the federal historic tax credit (HTC) 

in the United States; presents quantitative and qualitative information regarding the 

economic and other benefits of the federal HTC (e.g., providing aordable housing and 

spurring downtown revitalization); and explores ways in which the current federal HTC—a 

strong program in its own right—can be more flexibly applied in the future so as to realize 

yet greater production and ensuing benefits.

As shall shortly be detailed, the federal HTC (technically, Internal Revenue Code [IRC] 

section 47) was initiated in the late 1970s and aimed to provide a financial lift to realize 

the rehabilitation of the nation’s historic properties—a challenging goal. The program is 

administered by the National Park Service (NPS) working collaboratively with State Historic Preservation Ocers (SHPOs). The federal HTC has minimum investment and 

numerous other threshold requirements. There is strict oversight to ensure that program 

goals are met and a multi-step application process is required encompassing “Part 1” 

(evaluation of the historic significance of the property), “Part 2” (description of the 

rehabilitation work), and “Part 3” (request for certification of completed work). 

The analysis for this report was conducted by the Rutgers University Center for Urban 

Policy Research (CUPR1

) under the guidance of Drs. David Listokin, Michael L. Lahr (and 

CUPR Research Associates Charles Heydt and David Stanek), and with the assistance of 

John Leith-Tetrault and Anna Klosterman of the National Trust Community Investment 

Corporation (NTCIC), the historic tax credit subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation. This study was commissioned by the Historic Tax Credit Coalition (HTCC), 

a public policy advocacy organization whose members represent historic tax credit 

industry participants including investors, syndicators, developers, preservation consultants, tax attorneys and accountants. 

1

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit

The historic Carpenter 

Theater (c. 1928) in 

Richmond, VA reopened in 

2009 as the Carpenter 

Center for the Performing 

Arts, providing a home for 

the Richmond Symphony, 

Richmond Ballet and the 

Virginia Opera. The adjacent 

Dorothy Pauley Square 

(new construction) provides 

performance, educational 

and gallery spaces at 

aordable rates to 

Richmond’s emerging arts 

groups. The $85 million project would never have been realized without over $20 

million in equity and debt provided by the federal and state historic and New 

Markets Tax Credits.
First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit

HISTORY OF FEDERAL AND STATE TAX CREDIT INCENTIVES

The history of federal tax incentives for historic rehabilitation began with the 1976 Tax Act 

which included a 60-month accelerated depreciation of certain costs of rehabilitating 

certified historic properties and a tax deduction for preservation easements. However, the 

most significant step forward came with the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981 

which included a 25% tax credit for income-producing certified historic rehab, a 15% 

credit for the rehabilitation of non-historic buildings at least 30 years old, and a 20% 

credit for renovation of existing commercial properties at least 40 years old. 

ERTA quickly became a powerful driver of historic and non-historic rehabilitation activity 

as part of a broader economic stimulus package of the new Reagan Administration. In 

fiscal year (FY) 1985, NPS Part 2 approvals reached a peak of about $2.4 billion and 

approximately 6,200 applications respectively. (Unless otherwise indicated, dollar figures 

here and elsewhere are not adjusted for inflation.)

The last major structural changes to the 

IRC Section 47 rehab credits were made 

24 years ago as part of the 1986 Tax 

Reform Act when the 25% certified 

historic rehab credit was reduced to 

20% and the non-historic building rehab 

credit was collapsed into one 10% credit. 

Just as significant was the Act’s new 

“passive loss” rules which placed 

limitations on individual investor use of 

the HTC to oset investment income. 

The HTC market, which had depended 

on a combination of individual 

developer/owner investments and large 

individual-investor syndication structures, 

plummeted as a result of this change. 

The HTC market began to recover during the second half of the 1990s when corporations 

that had become regular investors in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) began 

looking for alternative investments when yields on the LIHTC began to fall. These companies had become familiar with the HTC through the combining, often termed “twinning,” of the HTC with LIHTC credits when historic properties were adaptively reused for 

aordable housing. 

2

The T.S. Martin & Co. 

Department store (c. 

1898) in Sioux City, 

Iowa, now known as 

the Century Plaza 

Apartments, was 

converted into 17 

units of aordable 

housing and 12,000 

square feet of 

oce/retail space in 

1999. The project 

would not have been 

possible without the 

use of $374,081 in 

federal historic and $969,919 in Low Income Housing Tax Credit equity.

The decline continued through 1993 when only 538 projects recieved NPS Part 2 

approval and total Part 2 approvals dropped to $468 million. In the wake of the 1986 

passive loss rule changes, thousands of individual HTC investors were left with credits 

that they could not redeem. 
2Source: Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, Statistical Report and Analysis for Fiscal Year 

 2008, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services.

3This is the amount of the HTC derived by applying the 20 percent credit to the Part 3 certified investment.

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit

In addition to leveraging other federal subsidies for housing and business development in 

low-income communities, the HTC has provided a model for the enactment of state 

historic tax credits (SHTC) in about 30 states. This number of tandem SHTCs compares 

favorably to the 16 states with state LIHTCs and eight states with New Markets Tax Credit 

(NMTC) programs. NPS statistical reports document that the states with the strongest 

SHTC statutes regularly lead the nation in the use of the federal HTC.2 

The Need for Historic Tax Credit Modernization

Despite the documented success of the HTC program, on a dollar volume basis, it 

remains much smaller than the LIHTC and NMTC credit programs. Even as an uncapped 

credit, the NPS certified only $655 million3 in HTC credits in FY 2008, its highest dollar 

volume in the program’s history. This compares to the pre-recession $7 billion credit 

expenditure level for the LIHTC and the recent $5 billion Round 7 allocation of the NMTC 

program. 

There are a variety of reasons for the relatively lower utilization rate of the federal HTC. 

Suggestions for removing some of these impediments are contained in a bill currently 

before both houses of Congress, HR 3715 and S 1743. The broad themes of this legislation include provisions that would facilitate greater use of the HTC on “Main Street-scale” 

rehabilitations in small towns and rural communities. Several provisions would provide a 

slightly deeper credit if the rehabilitation project achieves at least a 30% energy e-

ciency improvement over a baseline for similar buildings. Another “green” provision 

would allow the twinning of the HTC with Section 48 Renewable Energy Credits. 

By lowering minimum rehab levels 

to 50% of adjusted building basis, 

the bill allows for moderate rehabilitation. The bill would allow the use 

of the 10% non-historic building 

credit for housing and index the 

eligibility date for these properties 

to buildings 50 years or older. HR 

3715 and S 1743 would promote 

nonprofit organization sponsorship 

of HTC transactions by rolling back 

three of the four “disqualified lease 

rules” that limit leasing to nonprofit 

or government tenants in HTC properties to 50% of leasable space. 

Finally the bill contains several 

provisions that would increase the 

value of state HTCs when used in 

tandem with the federal HTC.

3

The Villagra Building in Santa Fe, New Mexico, which 

provides oces for the State Attorney General is comprised of the original historic structure built in 1934 and a 

new addition added in 2004. It is the first building in New 

Mexico to achieve LEED Gold level certification. One of it’s 

green attributes is the application of a high-tech ceramic 

film called Huper Sech to the interior glass surface of the 

structure’s original windows to improve their thermal 

properties. 
RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit

From fiscal year (FY) 1978 through FY 2008, NPS “Part 2” pre-rehabilitation approvals 

amounted to about $102.8 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) slated for investment in about 45,000 federal HTC-associated projects. In FY 2008 alone, the Part 2 

estimate in such projects was about $5.6 billion. However, the amount of Qualified Rehab 

Expenditures (QREs) for the tax credit reflected in “Part 3” certifications, made after 

completion, is significantly less: about $76.5 billion over FY 1978-2008 and $3.3 billion in 

FY 2008 (all inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). (All the above figures are best estimates.) 

This report therefore uses the lower Part 3 QREs inflated by 10% to account for non-QRE 

expenditures to estimate the economic impacts of the federal HTC. Aggregate investment using this more conservative approach is estimated at $85.0 billion over the 31-year 

life of the federal HTC and $3.6 billion in 2008. More detailed program activity data are 

found in Summary Exhibit 1.

The federal cost of the HTC is equal to the credit percent (25 percent from 1978 through 

1986 and 20 percent from 1987 onward) applied to the “Part 3” investment. That calculation yields the following estimates: the federal tax credit over the FY 1978-2008 period 

cost the US Treasury $16.6 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). Estimated total 

federal tax receipts generated by the HTC over the 31-year FY 1978-2008 span were $21 

billion, indicating that the federal historic tax credit is a revenue raiser for the US Treasury. (See Summary Exhibit 1 for details and for FY 2008 results.)This study quantifies the 

construction-stage total economic eects (i.e., direct as well as multiplier or secondary 

economic consequences) of the above cited investments. These eects are studied via 

an input-output model developed by Rutgers University for the National Park Service 

called the Preservation Economic Impact Model (PEIM). 

In the current analysis, the PEIM is applied to both cumulative (FY 1978 through 2008) 

federal tax credit-aided historic rehabilitation investment in the United States (about $85 

billion in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) and to the one-year 2008 annual tax creditaided rehabilitation investment (about $3.6 billion) throughout the nation. In applying 

the cumulative analysis, we consider the eects of the $85 billion rehabilitation investment as if eected in one year (2008), rather than retroactively backdating and applying 

the economic model for each of the 31 years encompassing the FY 1978-2008 study 

period. 

The results of the PEIM model include many fields. The fields most relevent to this study 

are the total impacts of the following:

• Jobs: Employment, both part- and full-time, by place of work, estimated using the 

typical job characteristics of each industry. 

• Income: “Earned” or labor income, specifically wages, salaries, and proprietors’ 

income. 

• Wealth: Value added — the sub-national equivalent of gross domestic product

(GDP). At the state level, this is called gross state product (GSP). 

• Output: The value of shipments, which is reported in the Economic Census.

• Taxes: Tax revenues generated by the activity which include taxes to federal, 

state and local governments.

4
HTC National Economic Impacts

The national total (direct and multiplier) economic impacts from the HTC-associated 

rehabilitation investment for the program to date (FY 1978-2008) and for the most 

current-year investment (FY 2008) are shown below and are also contained in Summary 

Exhibit 1. Detailed impacts are found in Summary Exhibits 2 through 4 and selected 

critical findings are further plotted in Summary Graph Sets 1 and 2 as well as Summary 

Maps 1 and 2.

The benefits that accrue from the investment in the federal tax credit-aided historic 

rehabilitation projects are extensive and almost all sectors of the nation’s economy see 

their payrolls and production increased. Illustrative are the cumulative FY 1978-2008 

federal HTC eects. Just under 30 percent of the national-based jobs from the cumulative $85 billion tax credit-aided rehabilitation investment (approximately 512,000 of 

1,815,000 jobs) and national gross domestic product ($27.5 billion of $97.6 billion GDP) 

created by historic rehabilitation aided by the cumulative federal HTC accrue to the 

nation’s construction industry; this is as one would expect, given the share of such 

projects that require the employment of building contractors. Other major economic 

sector beneficiaries are services (338,000 jobs, $12.9 billion in GDP) as well as manufacturing (368,000 jobs, $25.0 billion GDP) and the retail trade (281,000 jobs, $7.3 billion 

GDP) sectors. As a result of the interconnectedness of the national economy and 

because both direct and multiplier eects are considered, other sectors of the national 

economy not immediately associated with historic rehabilitation are aected as well, 

such as agriculture, mining and transportation and public utilities. (See Summary Exhibits 1 through 3, Summary Graph Sets 1 and 2, and Summary Maps 1 and 2.)

 

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit

ede C e e ab

o c p c

$85.0 billion cumulative 

(FY 1978-2008) historic 

rehabilitation 

expenditures results in:

$3.6 billion for FY 2008 

historic rehabilitation 

expenditures results in:

N o o ( re d )

Jobs (person-years; thousands) 1,815 58.8

Income ($ billion) 71.7 2.6

Output ($ billion) 197.6 6.9

GDP ($ billion) 97.6 3.5

Taxes ($ billion) 28.7 1.0

Federal ($ billion) 21.0 0.6

State ($ billion) 3.9 0.2

Local ($ billion) 3.8 0.2
HTC State Level Impacts 

The economic impact from federal tax credit-aided historic rehabilitation is reflected at 

the state-level as well as the national economy. For example, in FY 2008, Missouri had 

about $419 million in federal HTC-supported rehabilitation. The national impacts of that 

investment included about 7,200 jobs generating an additional $796 million in output, 

$299 million in income, $396 million in GDP, and $94 million in taxes. At the state of 

Missouri level, the FY 2008 $419 million in historic rehabilitation spending translated to 

about 5,300 jobs generating $518 million in output, $225 million in labor income, $275 

million in gross state product (GSP), and $85 million in taxes. The in-state wealth (GSP 

minus federal taxes) resulting from rehabilitation expenditures amounted to $210 million, 

indicating a high 76 percent retention rate. Similar high state-level retention rates of the 

economic benefits from the HTC characterize other locations as well. 

Comparison of the HTC to the Economic Impacts of Non-Preservation Investments 

How does tax credit-aided historic rehabilitation fare as an economic pump-primer 

vis-à-vis other non-preservation investments? The short answer is “quite well” as we cite 

Kansas as an example. A $1 million investment in historic rehabilitation in Kansas realizes 

a markedly better economic eect to Kansas with respect to employment, income, GSP, 

and state-local taxes compared to a similar increment of investment (i.e. $1 million) in an 

array of residential and nonresidential new 

construction (including building highways) 

in Kansas or a $1 million investment in an 

array of business activities important in 

Kansas, such as manufacturing (e.g., electrical machinery and automobile), agriculture 

(wheat farming), and services 

(telecommunication). It is not a question of 

historic rehabilitation as opposed to other 

pursuits, but rather historic rehabilitation 

joining in a holistic fashion the many activities of the broader economy in Kansas so as 

to realize the commendable strong economic “bang for the buck” oered by that 

rehabilitation.

6

The Harmony Mills National Historic Landmark in Cohoes, New York (c. 1866-1872) 

encompasses a complex of four mill buildings 

that was once the largest textile mill in North 

America.

The rehabilitation of Mill no. 3 into 96 loft 

apartments in 2006 was made feasible by 

$2,619,621 in federal historic tax credit equity.

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit
An NTCIC study of the first 4 Rounds of the NMTC program has shown that about one in 10 

transactions and approximately 20% of all Qualified Equity Investments involve the twinning 

of historic and New Markets Tax Credits. NPS statistics show that two-thirds of all approved 

HTC projects since 2002 have been located in NMTC-eligible Low-Income Census Tracts. No 

similar studies or statistics exist for the twinning of LIHTC and federal HTCs, but anecdotal 

evidence suggests that as much as 15% of all LIHTC aordable housing projects are adaptive 

reuses of historic properties that also generate HTCs. 

These various tax credit combinations have produced powerful results. For example, from 

the inception of federal historic preservation tax incentives to date (FY 2008), 405,385 housing units have been completed. Of that total, 216,993 or 54 percent, were existing housing 

units that were rehabilitated, and 188,392 or 46 percent were “newly” created housing units 

(e.g., housing resulting from the adaptive reuse of once-commercial space). Of the 405,385 

total housing units completed under federal historic preservation tax incentive auspices since 

the late 1970s, 101,860, or 25 percent, were aordable to low- and/or moderate-income (LMI) 

families (This was often accomplished by combining the federal HTC with the LIHTC.) That 

averages to about 3,300 LMI units per year. In FY 2008, 5,220 LMI units were produced under 

the federal HTC. The federal HTC is largely invisible in the housing “radar”, yet it deserves 

much greater attention, given its total and LMI housing unit production. Further, the LMI 

share of HTC housing units is growing. From FY 2000 through FY 2008, 37 percent, on average, of all federal HTC housing has been at LMI levels. In FY 1998, the LMI share of all HTC 

units reached a high of 48 percent. 

7

In 2009, with the help of 

$3,798,586 in federal historic tax 

credit equity, The American 

Brewery Building (c. 1877) in east 

Baltimore, MD became the headquarters of Humanim, a nonprofit 

human services group that 

provides employment training 

and other support to physically 

and mentally challenged individuals living in poverty.

HTC Impacts on Housing and Downtown Revitalization 

Case study analysis of federal HTC implementation points to many additional quantitative 

and qualitative benefits of the federal tax credit, including providing aordable housing, 

fostering downtown economic development and encouraging adaptive reuse. The historic 

preservation, aordable housing, economic development and other benefits of the federal 

HTC are augmented by combining the federal HTC with other tax credits. In an exemplary 

case of creative federalism, about 30 states have state-level HTCs of their own; they typically 

“piggyback” the federal HTC. The federal (and state) HTCs have further been “twinned” with 

the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and the federal New Markets Tax Credits 

(NMTC). 

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit
•An inflation-adjusted (2008 dollars) $16.6 billion federal historic tax credit 

cost to date has encouraged a five times greater amount of historic 

rehabilitation ($85 billion). 

•This rehabilitation investment has generated about 1.8 million new jobs and 

billions of dollars of total (direct and secondary) economic gains. 

•The cumulative impacts to the national economy include: output ($198 

billion), gross domestic product ($98 billion), income ($72 billion), and taxes 

($29 billion, including $21 billion in federal tax receipts).

•The leverage and multiplier benefits as noted above give support to the 

argument that the federal HTC is a strategic investment. Our results also 

show that the federal cost of the HTC—a cumulative $16.6 billion in 2008 

inflation-adjusted dollars—is more than oset by the $21 billion in federal 

taxes realized to date.

Summary of Cumulative HTC Impacts 

In short, the federal HTC is a “good” investment for the nation, states, and local communities. We illustrate some facets of this by considering the cumulative (FY 1978-2008) 

program to date. 

In considering the federal HTC “cost-benefit,” it should further be realized that our quantification of HTC economic and tax consequences are understated for various reasons: 

For various technical reasons, our estimate of the total rehabilitation cost associated with 

the federal HTC (i.e., $85 billion in constant 2008 dollars over FY 1978-2008 and $3.6 

billion in FY 2008) is likely understated. In tandem then, the economic and tax eects 

flowing from the rehabilitation investment are understated as well. 

Significant economic and tax benefits accrue from the federal HTC that have not been 

quantified by Rutgers University because they went beyond the scope of the current 

investigation. The latter focused solely on the economic eects from the federal HTCassociated construction—a one-time investment. 

8

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit
The iconic Pontchartrain Hotel in New Orleans was 

rescued from severe hurricane flood damage and 

reopened in 2010 as 84 service-enriched senior 

housing units. The rehabilitation was made feasible 

by over $8 million in financing provided by federal 

and state historic and federal New Markets Tax 

Credits.

In fact, there are recurring year-by-year economic returns from the federal HTC. These 

recurring benefits include the federal HTC’s investment enhancing tourism, specifically heritage and cultural travel (a multi-billion dollar industry); the historic tax credit providing 

adaptively-reused and other commercial space for businesses that annually have a payroll 

and tax payments; and the positive federal HTC investment impact on property values, 

which then yearly have tax, wealth, and other benefits. We have also not counted the well 

known (though dicult to measure) tendency of historic rehabilitation to boost investor and 

neighborhood confidence and induce a broader trend toward community-wide revitalization. 

In a related fashion, we are not capturing how the enhanced “quality of life” (QOL) realized 

by the federal HTC furthers the national and state economy and public tax generation (e.g., 

through such means as 

attracting the “creative 

class” and more generally 

from enhanced worker 

eciency, reduced medical 

expenses, and the like). In 

short, the full economic and 

tax benefits from the federal 

HTC are yet greater than the 

already considerable economic and tax consequences documented in the 

current study. 

9

First Annual Report on the Economic Impact

Of the Federal Historic Tax Credit
SUMMARY EXHIBIT 1 

Summary of Federal Historic Tax Credit Statistics 

--Dollar amounts are expressed in billions--

FY 1978 – 2008 FY 2008 

Nominal$ d Real$ e Real$ f

• Investment/Tax Credit 

Componenta

Total Annual 

Average Total Annual Average Total 

Approved proposed ( for tax 

credit) rehabilitation ("Part 2") $57.3 $1.8 $102.8 $3.3 $5.6 

Certified (for tax credit) 

rehabilitation ("Part 3") $40.9 $1.3 $76.5 $2.5 $3.3 

Total rehabilitation costb $45.4 $1.5 $85.0 $2.7 $3.6 

Federal tax creditc $8.6 $0.3 $16.6 $0.5 $0.7 

--Dollar amounts are expressed in billions of Real 2008 $ e -- 

• Economic Impacts (See Summary FY 1978 - 2008 FY 2008 

Exhibits 2 through 4 for details.)

Total Annual 

Average Total 

Jobs (in thousands) 1,815.2 58.6 58.8 

Income $71.7 $2.3 $2.6 

Gross Domestic Product $97.6 $3.1 $3.5 

Output $197.6 $6.4 $6.9 

Taxes—All Government $28.7 $0.9 $1.0 

Taxes—Federal Government $21.0 $0.7 $0.6 

Taxes—State Government $3.9 $0.1 $0.2 

Taxes—Local Government $3.8 $0.1 $0.2 

Technical Background: The HTC has a multi-step application process encompassing “Part 1” (evaluation of the historic significance of the 

property), “Part 2” (description of the rehabilitation work), and “Part 3” (request of certification of completed work). With respect to the HTC’s 

dollar magnitude, the most complete data is for the approved proposed (for tax credit) rehabilitation investment (“Part 2”). We do not have as 

good data on the year-by-year certified (for tax credit) rehabilitation (“Part 3) volume over the full FY 1978-2008 period. (Only a portion of the 

“Part 2” rehabilitation is ultimately certified as “Part 3.”) Further, we do not have specific data on the total rehabilitation investment associated 

with the HTC. By way of background, both “Part 2” and “Part 3” rehabilitation statistics include only what are termed “eligible” or “qualified” 

items (or Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditures—QRE) for the tax credit as opposed to what are called “ineligible” or “non-qualified” costs. 

Examples of “eligible”/”qualified” items include outlays for renovation (walls, floors, and ceilings, etc.) construction-period interest and taxes, and 

architect fees; examples of “ineligible”/”non-qualified” costs include landscaping, financing and leasing fees, and various other outlays (e.g. , for 

fencing, paving, sidewalks and parking lots). While the “ineligible”/”non-qualified” expenses do not count for tax credit purposes, they are 

practically a component of the total rehabilitation investment borne by the HTC-oriented developer and in fact, the total rehabilitation 

investment (including “ineligible”/”non-qualified” costs) help pump-prime the economy. Based on the best published data and through 

additional case studies conducted specifically for the purposes of the current investigation, Rutgers University estimates some of the “missing 

information” noted above regarding the cumulative HTC investment over FY 1978-2008. 

a

 Data estimated from best available information 

b

 Equals all rehabilitation outlays—both “eligible”/”qualified” expenses and “ineligible”/”non-qualified” costs. The total 

rehabilitation cost is estimated by dividing the "Part 3" investment divided by .9. Case study investigation suggests that the

"Part 3" amount is closer to 85 percent of the total rehabilitation cost, however we elected to apply the .9 factor to be 

conservative, that is to derive a lower rather than a higher estimate of the total rehabilitation expense. 

c

 Assumes a 25 percent HTC in FY 1978 - FY 1986 and a 20 percent HTC in FY 1987 - FY 2008. These percents are applied to 

the certified rehabilitation ("Part 3") 

d

 In indicated year dollars--not adjusted for inflation 

e

 In inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars 

f

 Nominal and real dollars are the same for 2008 

Sources: Department of the Interior , National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services; National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Oces; and calculations by Rutgers University

10
SUMMARY GRAPH SET 1

11
SUMMARY GRAPH SET 2

12
13

SUMM Y M

o e p c o e N o a co o y ro e or c x C e e b on ve e

sca Year 200

Note: As indicated in the title, this map quantifies the impacts to the national economy of each state’s HTC investment. 

Much of these national-level impacts, however, are retained within each state. 
14

SUMM Y 2

nco e c o e N o a co o o e or c C ed e a o n e e

isca Year 2008

Note: As indicated in the title, this map quantifies the impacts to the national economy of each state’s HTC investment. Much of these national-level impacts, however, are retained within each state. 
15

SU MARY EX IBIT 2

co o a ax m o e e or x C e ve e o e

Nation

 Ye r 9 2008 ($84,997.4 Million) 

o m om o

 

O u 

(0 0 )

 

(

c 

(0 0 )

Gr s Do s c

u 00 )

I TOTA EFFECTS (D ec I c I ce *

1. Agriculture 2,096,228.3 5,678 145,602.5 311,049.5 

2. Agri. Serv., Forestry, & Fish 1,017,145.7 9,883 353,972.0 551,089.4 

3. Mining 3,708,743.8 14,359 903,976.2 1,586,596.1 

4. Construction 38,592,837.3 511,869 22,474,583.3 27,480,447.4 

5. Manufacturing 70,053,219.9 368,255 16,270,351.3 24,992,550.6 

6. Transport. & Public Utilities 13,541,194.0 70,441 3,380,654.2 5,653,750.7 

7. Wholesale 8,104,589.2 63,835 3,295,750.4 3,443,478.5 

8. Retail Trade 12,612,585.7 280,098 4,640,801.8 7,342,888.3 

9. Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 18,910,648.4 144,588 7,406,420.5 12,848,450.8 

10. Services 27,948,192.5 337,984 12,536,923.7 12,874,421.8 

11. Government 1,008,741.5 8,219 305,747.1 478,488.9 

 c ( r n b c ,5 5 7 0 

S R ON O C T P R

1. Direct Eects 84,997,405.6 834,865 37,746,293.2 46,022,755.6 

2. Indirect and Induced Eects 112,596,720.7 980,344 33,968,489.8 51,540,456.4 

3. Total Eects 197,594,126.3 1,815,208 71,714,783.0 97,563,212.0 

4. Multipliers (3/1) 2.325 2.174 1.900 2.120 

III CO POSITION OF GROSS STATE PRODUCT

1. Wages—Net of Taxes 60,882,646.8 

2. Taxes 14,228,073.2 

a. Local 2,183,597.5 

b. State 2,146,588.2 

c. Federal 9,897,887.5 

 General 2,208,938.9 

 Social Security 7,688,948.7 

3. Profits, dividends, rents, and other 22,452,492.1 

4. Total Gross State Product (1+2+3) 97,563,212.0 

V TAX A O S (00 )

Househo d

(000 )

o

(00 )

1. Income—Net of Taxes 60,882,646.8 71,714,783.0 --------- 

2. Taxes 14,228,073.2 14,448,587.5 28,676,660.7 

a. Local 2,183,597.5 1,637,118.3 3,820,715.8 

b. State 2,146,588.2 1,758,134.2 3,904,722.4 

c. Federal 9,897,887.5 11,053,335.0 20,951,222.6 

 General 2,208,938.9 11,053,335.0 13,262,273.9 

 Social Security 7,688,948.7 0.0 7,688,948.7 

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

*Terms: Direct Eects --the proportion of direct spending on goods and services produced in the specified region. 

Indirect Eects--the value of goods and services needed to support the provision of those direct economic eects. 

Induced Eects--the value of goods and services needed by households that provide the direct and indirect labor. 

 
16

SUMMARY EXHIBIT 3 

Economic and Tax Impacts of Federal Historic Tax Credit Investment on the Nation 

Fiscal Year 2008 ($3,636.3 Million)

Economic Component 

Output 

(000$) 

Employment 

(jobs) 

Income 

(000$) 

Gross Domestic 

 Product (000$) 

I. TOTAL EFFECTS (Direct and Indirect/Induced)* 

1. Agriculture 47,205.5 141 3,395.4 9,875.9 

2. Agri. Serv., Forestry, & Fish 32,519.5 284 11,162.7 21,231.4 

3. Mining 108,845.4 544 29,119.6 52,260.9 

4. Construction 1,609,424.8 20,648 952,203.9 1,157,167.7 

5. Manufacturing 2,542,910.4 13,586 602,856.8 965,461.4 

6. Transport. & Public Utilities 378,409.6 2,327 99,208.6 179,007.4 

7. Wholesale 283,846.9 1,981 115,427.0 119,695.4 

8. Retail Trade 372,939.1 7,022 137,280.5 211,704.7 

9. Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 453,178.6 2,405 161,047.7 282,965.8 

10. Services 1,021,547.6 9,625 463,054.8 471,575.3 

11. Government 30,714.1 216 9,302.5 14,533.3 

 Total Eects (Private and Public) 6,881,541.6 58,780 2,584,059.4 3,485,479.2 

II. DISTRIBUTION OF EFFECTS/MULTIPLIER 

1. Direct Eects 3,635,626.7 33,522 1,614,659.6 2,009,579.6 

2. Indirect and Induced Eects 3,245,914.8 25,258 969,399.8 1,475,899.6 

3. Total Eects 6,881,541.6 58,780 2,584,059.4 3,485,479.2 

4. Multipliers (3/1) 1.893 1.753 1.600 1.734 

III. COMPOSITION OF GROSS STATE PRODUCT 

1. Wages—Net of Taxes 2,176,414.7 

2. Taxes 538,970.6 

a. Local 136,302.6 

b. State 106,613.0 

c. Federal 296,055.0 

 General 77,514.1 

 Social Security 218,540.9 

3. Profits, dividends, rents, and other 770,094.0 

4. Total Gross State Product (1+2+3) 3,485,479.2 

IV. TAX ACCOUNTS

Business 

(000$)

Household

(000$)

Tota

(000$)

1. Income—Net of Taxes 2,176,414.7 2,038,329.4 ---------

2. Taxes 538,970.6 414,047.4 953,017.9 

a. Local 136,302.6 45,263.3 181,565.9 

b. State 106,613.0 54,618.2 161,231.2 

c. Federal 296,055.0 314,165.9 610,220.8 

 General 77,514.1 314,165.9 391,680.0 

 Social Security 218,540.9 0.0 218,540.9 

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

*Terms: Direct Eects --the proportion of direct spending on goods and services produced in the specified region. 

Indirect Eects--the value of goods and services needed to support the provision of those direct economic eects. 

Induced Eects--the value of goods and services needed by households that provide the direct and indirect labor. 
Explanation of Division-Level Economic Impacts Specified in the Current Study

The economic divisional-level results specified in the current study (Summary Exhibits 2 

and 3) include the following sections explained below.

Section I – Total Eects 

 Total eects by division including both direct and multiplier (indirect and induced) 

 eects.

Section II – Distribution of Eects Multiplier

 II.1 Sum of all division direct eects

 II.2 Sum of all division multiplier (indirect and induced) eects

 II.3 Total eects (the sum of II.1 and II.2)

 II.4 Multiplier ratio of total eects (II.3) divided by direct eects (II.1)

Section III – Composition of Gross State Product

 This comprises:

 III.1 Wages that are Net of taxes paid at the employer’s location;a

 III.2 Taxes—local state and federal; and

 III.3 Profits, dividends, rents, and other—which depending on the year of the GDP 

 data used in the analysis, geography, and sector involved can be either posi- 

 tive or negative.

 III.4 Total gross state product (sum of III.1, III.2, and III.3)—the latter is from the 

 firms (or “business”) expenditure accounts.

Section IV – Tax Accounts

 The sum of taxes remitted by both business (see Section III) and households (where 

 the latter are not included in the section III gross state product) accounts. Section IV 

 encompasses for both business and households:

 IV.1 Wages—Net of taxes at place of work (for business) and place of residence 

 for non in-commuting households. 

 IV.2 Taxes by level of government (local, state, and federal) and type (e.g., for 

 federal—general and social security). Note: the taxes in Section III are for 

 business only while taxes in Section IV include the business taxes from Sec 

 tion III and add as well household-generated taxes. 

a Wages—Net of taxes are not the same as “income” (shown in Section I) for income includes wages, salaries, 

proprietor’s income, and employer-paid taxes.

Source: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research

SUMMARY EXHIBIT 4

17
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Civic Square Building

33 Livingston Avenue

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

732-932-5475

Web: policy.rutgers.edu

Email: ejb@policy.rutgers.edu

The Historic Tax Credit Coalition

Michael Hanson

Email: hanson@thec2group.com

P 202.567.2905

F 202.393.7887

Liberty Place 

325 7th Street NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20004