- 44 -
515 U.S. ___, ___, 115 S. Ct. 2159, 2163 (1995). The simple fact
is that the statutory requirements for exempting the interest
earned on the Bonds have not been met. As with other debtor-
creditor relationships, the risk that the issuer of bonds will
not live up to the responsibilities undertaken when it
represented the quality of its obligations must be born by the
bond purchasers.
One might also sympathize with the situation of the Housing
Authority of Riverside County. However, it seems clear that, as
between it and the Federal Government, the Housing Authority
should bear responsibility for what happened. The Housing
Authority issued the Bonds and selected those who were
responsible for implementing their issuance and applying the
proceeds. Congress clearly wanted bond issuers to be responsible
for meeting the requirements for tax exemption. The Housing
Authority certified that the Bonds would qualify for tax
exemption. Like any other local government bond issuer, the
Housing Authority was responsible for paying any amount required
by section 148(f)(2), regardless of whether it intended to
generate the excess described in section 148(f)(2). It has thus
far chosen not to do so. Unfortunately for its bondholders, the
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011