"First-time homebuyer" is not one definition, and the difference is a full year. For the retirement account exception, 26 USC 72(t)(8)(D)(i) defines a first-time homebuyer as an individual who, "and if married, such individual's spouse," had "no present ownership interest in a principal residence during the 2-year period ending on the date of acquisition." For the state and local bond programs that fund many below-market first-time mortgages, 26 USC 143(d), headed "3-year requirement," instead requires financing to go to "mortgagors who had no present ownership interest in their principal residences at any time during the 3-year period ending on the date their mortgage is executed." So a buyer who sold a home thirty months ago is a first-time homebuyer for the IRA rule and is not one for a state bond program, and both statements are correct at once. The same section then sets the three-year test aside in defined cases, including a residence in a targeted area and, on a first use of the exception, a veteran. Conventional mortgage underwriting and individual state agencies use their own tests again. The workable habit is to ask which definition a particular program is using rather than to assume the label travels.
What the federal government actually provides to a first-time buyer as such. Section 72(t)(2)(F) creates an exception to the ten percent early distribution penalty for "distributions to an individual from an individual retirement plan which are qualified first-time homebuyer distributions." Four features of it are routinely misreported. It applies to IRAs only, not to a 401(k) or another employer plan. It is capped at $10,000 over a lifetime, not per purchase, because 72(t)(8)(B) limits the amount to the excess of $10,000 over everything already treated that way in prior years. The money must be used within 120 days of receipt on qualified acquisition costs, which the statute defines as "the costs of acquiring, constructing, or reconstructing a residence" including "any usual or reasonable settlement, financing, or other closing costs." And the residence does not have to be the account owner's: the statute reaches a principal residence of the individual, their spouse, or "any child, grandchild, or ancestor of such individual or the individual's spouse," which makes it a route for a parent or grandparent to help. The figure is fixed in the statute and is not adjusted for inflation.
Mortgage credit certificates are the other live federal benefit, and they are issued locally. A state or local housing finance agency can issue a certificate that converts part of a borrower's annual mortgage interest into a federal income tax credit for as long as they hold the loan and live in the home. The certificates are the same machinery as the bond programs, so they carry the three-year test, purchase price limits and income limits, and they are administered by the issuing agency rather than by the IRS. Where a certificate is available it can be worth more over time than a one-off grant, because it recurs annually, and it generally has to be applied for alongside the mortgage rather than added afterwards.
State and local assistance is where most of the money is, and it cannot be summarized nationally. Housing finance agencies run below-market-rate mortgages, down payment and closing cost assistance as grants or as second liens that may be forgiven after a period of occupancy, and targeted programs for particular occupations or areas. The terms, the amounts, the income ceilings and the availability differ by state and by year, and funds can be exhausted partway through a funding cycle. That is why no national page, including this one, should be treated as authority on the amount available in a given state. The agency's own site is the source, and HUD maintains state-by-state listings of both the agencies and the approved counseling providers.
Three widely repeated claims to discount. FHA's minimum cash investment and VA and USDA's zero-down structures are not first-time buyer benefits, and describing them that way sends repeat buyers away from loans they qualify for. What is true, and is where the confusion comes from, is that particular rules inside those programs single out first-time buyers: the conventional 97 percent loan-to-value option carries a first-time condition above 95 percent, where at least one borrower must be a first-time buyer and a repeat buyer's floor is 5 percent, and 12 USC 1709(b)(2) bars FHA from insuring a first-time buyer's loan above 97 percent of appraised value unless the borrower has completed approved counseling. A rule aimed at first-time buyers inside a program open to everyone is not a first-time buyer program. And repeated bills to revive a federal first-time buyer credit have been introduced without being enacted, so a proposal reported as news is not a program.