Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL)
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules for investments in qualified opportunity funds, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
H.R. 7820 modifies the rules for investments in qualified opportunity funds by changing the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The bill extends the designation period of qualified opportunity zones from the 10th calendar year to the 20th calendar year under section 1. It also extends the election period and updates the year of inclusion to December 31, 2036, for certain amounts invested. Additionally, the legislation introduces specific rules and basis increases for investments involving residential rental projects. Finally, it sets requirements for treating residential rental projects as qualified opportunity zone property.
Yes· 3 of 37
- Scored +7
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill includes specific provisions and rent increase caps to encourage affordable housing development in opportunity zones.
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill mandates that qualifying residential rental projects reserve units for lower-income individuals and caps rent increases.
- Scored +6
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Wealthy investors benefit significantly from capital gains tax deferral and basis step-up rules.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Extending tax incentives for opportunity funds may reduce federal tax revenues.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 1(d)(1) increases the basis for taxpayers investing in qualified opportunity funds that hold residential rental projects, provided that at least 50 percent of the occupied residential units are occupied by individuals whose income is 100 percent or less of the area median income. This could benefit renters with low to moderate incomes by encouraging investments in housing they can afford.
-
Section 1(d)(2) establishes that for a residential rental project to be treated as qualified opportunity zone property, rent increases cannot exceed 3 percent annually for any of the residential units in the project. This provision protects tenants from extreme rent hikes.
-
Section 1(d)(2) also requires that at least 60-day advance notice be provided with respect to any rent increase for a residential unit in the project. This gives tenants a helpful buffer of time to prepare for changes in their housing costs.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no explicitly stated negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaires and major institutional investors receive extended tax benefits for capital investments. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Wealthy investors benefit significantly from capital gains tax deferral and basis step-up rules. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill mandates that qualifying residential rental projects reserve units for lower-income individuals and caps rent increases. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Ultra-high-net-worth individuals utilize opportunity funds to shelter large capital gains. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners and investors gain extended opportunities for tax-advantaged investments. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income taxpayers benefit from extended capital gains tax incentives and investment deferrals. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Area median income thresholds help moderate-income households access affordable rental units. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban opportunity zones frequently experience housing development and neighborhood revitalization. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Investment in economically distressed zones often positively impacts minority communities. Would children be better off under this? — Stable and affordable housing benefits families with children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic communities in designated zones can experience revitalization and housing benefits. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrant families often comprise a portion of lower-income renters benefiting from affordable housing rules. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from rent stability and anti-displacement measures in opportunity zone housing. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural opportunity zones benefit from targeted capital investments and development incentives. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors on fixed incomes benefit from rent stabilization measures in opportunity zone housing. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults often benefit from rent protections and affordable housing options. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian Americans residing in targeted zones may see local economic improvements. Would men be better off under this? — General economic development benefits local residents regardless of gender. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals benefit from community economic investments. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Certain tribal or rural areas designated as opportunity zones can experience economic development. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Affordable housing protections assist individuals with disabilities living on fixed incomes. Would students be better off under this? — Students and young scholars searching for affordable apartments can benefit from rent stabilization provisions. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans living in opportunity zones may benefit from improved housing affordability. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Residents of designated opportunity zones broadly benefit from community investments. Would women be better off under this? — Access to affordable housing supports female-headed households and families. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural opportunity zones may include agricultural or adjacent community investments. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General improvements in community infrastructure and housing indirectly benefit LGBTQ individuals. Would union members be better off under this? — Construction and development projects can create short-term job opportunities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill includes specific provisions and rent increase caps to encourage affordable housing development in opportunity zones. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Targeting investments toward affordable housing and lower-income residents helps address economic distress. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Encouraging residential rental projects accessible to lower-income individuals aids in housing stability. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Opportunity zones often target economically distressed areas with significant minority populations.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this cut the tax on profits from selling investments? — The bill extends and modifies tax incentives and deferrals for investments in qualified opportunity funds. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The legislation encourages long-term capital investment in economically distressed communities. Is this likely to create jobs? — Extending opportunity zone investments can stimulate local economic activity and job growth. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increased investment in opportunity zones can benefit local businesses operating within those areas. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Extending tax incentives for opportunity funds may reduce federal tax revenues.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Opportunity zones can include rural areas eligible for economic development investments.
- 3/5/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- Introduced in House