IRS tax-return household network

US Migration Flow Atlas: the metro network behind IRS moves

Which US metros gained or lost tax-return households, how much of that movement maps directly between RentMarker metros, and which counterpart market leads each direction?

National totals can hide the network carrying movement into and out of a metro. This atlas keeps the IRS all-US totals as the benchmark, then exposes only directly matched inter-metro county-pair flows.

Complete metro network
696
all-US totals plus direct inbound and outbound pairs
Directional pairs
16,928
exact inter-metro routes
Mapped tax returns
3,449,254
counted once on the inbound side
Median net rate
+0.2 / 1k
IRS households per 1,000 ACS residents
What the network adds

A net total can hide two large, differently distributed directions

The complete network contains 696 metros and 16,928 directional market pairs. Those pairs carry 3,449,254 directly mapped tax-return households, each counted once through its destination. The all-US inbound and outbound totals remain the denominator, so movement outside a current RentMarker metro never gets reassigned to a convenient nearby market.

Jefferson, GA has the highest included net inflow rate at 21.4 tax-return households per 1,000 residents. At the other end, Edwards, CO records -6.8 per 1,000. The rate controls for market size; the table keeps the underlying counts visible.

IRS migration describes filing-unit movement. It does not identify renters, motives, household formation or the housing demand created by a move.

The largest direct corridor runs from Los Angeles, CA to Riverside, CA with 41,500 tax-return households. Open the migration atlas to change direction, inspect coverage and see whether one corridor dominates or the flow is spread across many counterparts.

Ten highest and ten lowest complete metro rates

Net tax-return household movement, population-adjusted

Bars preserve direction around zero; the table and atlas retain the underlying counts and direct corridor coverage.

Metro net IRS tax-return household migration per 1,000 residentsDiverging horizontal bar chart of the ten highest and ten lowest complete metro net migration rates. Positive bars indicate net inbound tax-return households and negative bars indicate net outbound households.-23.1-11.60.0+11.6+23.1JeffersonJefferson, GA: +21.4 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 1,814 net households+21.4The VillagesThe Villages, FL: +21.0 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 3,011 net households+21.0SpearfishSpearfish, SD: +16.2 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 441 net households+16.2Myrtle BeachMyrtle Beach, SC: +15.5 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 5,933 net households+15.5OcalaOcala, FL: +14.8 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 5,929 net households+14.8Homosassa SpringsHomosassa Springs, FL: +14.2 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 2,307 net households+14.2WilmingtonWilmington, NC: +12.5 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 5,645 net households+12.5LewisburgLewisburg, TN: +11.7 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 422 net households+11.7LakelandLakeland, FL: +11.6 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 9,148 net households+11.6Port St. LuciePort St. Lucie, FL: +10.6 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; 5,547 net households+10.6LafayetteLafayette, IN: -5.4 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -1,233 net households-5.4FairbanksFairbanks, AK: -5.5 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -526 net households-5.5IthacaIthaca, NY: -5.6 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -584 net households-5.6PlainviewPlainview, TX: -5.8 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -215 net households-5.8KingsvilleKingsville, TX: -5.8 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -178 net households-5.8RexburgRexburg, ID: -6.0 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -411 net households-6.0PittsburgPittsburg, KS: -6.0 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -235 net households-6.0MitchellMitchell, SD: -6.3 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -162 net households-6.3Morgan CityMorgan City, LA: -6.3 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -303 net households-6.3EdwardsEdwards, CO: -6.8 net tax-return households per 1,000 residents; -374 net households-6.8Net IRS tax-return households per 1,000 ACS residents
IRS migration covers filing-unit moves, not every resident move. Population is used only as the denominator for comparison; no renter share, motive or forecast is inferred.
Decision table

The first 24 rows, with a path to the underlying market

Largest absolute net IRS migration rates with direct market-network coverage
RankMetroNet householdsPer 1,000Mapped inMapped outTop inboundTop outboundOpen
1Jefferson, GA4,506 in · 2,692 out1,81421.467.5%5 counterparts54.3%3 counterpartsAtlanta, GA1,952 returnsAtlanta, GA712 returnsMap flows
2The Villages, FL8,009 in · 4,998 out3,01121.052.3%43 counterparts50.9%18 counterpartsOrlando, FL1,066 returnsOrlando, FL899 returnsMap flows
3Spearfish, SD1,427 in · 986 out44116.219.1%3 counterparts29.6%2 counterpartsRapid City, SD212 returnsRapid City, SD264 returnsMap flows
4Myrtle Beach, SC15,027 in · 9,094 out5,93315.560.8%91 counterparts43.1%55 counterpartsNew York, NY1,538 returnsCharlotte, NC428 returnsMap flows
5Ocala, FL15,821 in · 9,892 out5,92914.868.2%68 counterparts57.0%37 counterpartsOrlando, FL2,039 returnsOrlando, FL1,148 returnsMap flows
6Homosassa Springs, FL6,689 in · 4,382 out2,30714.254.4%21 counterparts45.7%13 counterpartsTampa, FL1,484 returnsTampa, FL672 returnsMap flows
7Wilmington, NC16,734 in · 11,089 out5,64512.546.7%52 counterparts40.4%39 counterpartsRaleigh, NC1,321 returnsRaleigh, NC871 returnsMap flows
8Lewisburg, TN1,324 in · 902 out42211.756.6%2 counterparts48.0%2 counterpartsNashville, TN677 returnsNashville, TN367 returnsMap flows
9Lakeland, FL30,845 in · 21,697 out9,14811.681.6%109 counterparts71.1%87 counterpartsOrlando, FL8,908 returnsOrlando, FL5,458 returnsMap flows
10Port St. Lucie, FL19,797 in · 14,250 out5,54710.670.6%46 counterparts57.7%43 counterpartsMiami, FL8,105 returnsMiami, FL2,775 returnsMap flows
11Panama City, FL8,111 in · 5,865 out2,24610.638.6%47 counterparts35.8%34 counterpartsCrestview, FL536 returnsCrestview, FL358 returnsMap flows
12Punta Gorda, FL9,405 in · 7,526 out1,8799.355.8%43 counterparts48.1%31 counterpartsNorth Port, FL1,585 returnsNorth Port, FL1,433 returnsMap flows
13Athens, TN2,188 in · 1,585 out6038.834.4%3 counterparts36.7%3 counterpartsCleveland, TN334 returnsCleveland, TN308 returnsMap flows
14Deltona, FL24,395 in · 18,167 out6,2288.865.9%83 counterparts58.7%74 counterpartsOrlando, FL5,884 returnsOrlando, FL3,739 returnsMap flows
15Clewiston, FL1,912 in · 1,435 out4778.765.7%5 counterparts47.2%6 counterpartsMiami, FL633 returnsCape Coral, FL268 returnsMap flows
16Cambridge, MD970 in · 686 out2848.735.3%3 counterparts22.9%2 counterpartsBaltimore, MD151 returnsEaston, MD114 returnsMap flows
17Williston, ND1,543 in · 1,202 out3418.611.7%6 counterparts13.0%4 counterpartsMinot, ND52 returnsMinot, ND59 returnsMap flows
18Spartanburg, SC10,511 in · 7,321 out3,1908.563.9%47 counterparts58.8%21 counterpartsGreenville, SC3,374 returnsGreenville, SC2,451 returnsMap flows
19Albemarle, NC1,818 in · 1,271 out5478.560.3%3 counterparts52.2%5 counterpartsCharlotte, NC1,048 returnsCharlotte, NC548 returnsMap flows
20Crossville, TN1,987 in · 1,466 out5218.224.7%6 counterparts26.5%4 counterpartsCookeville, TN199 returnsCookeville, TN198 returnsMap flows
21Greeley, CO13,725 in · 10,885 out2,8408.175.3%36 counterparts65.3%37 counterpartsDenver, CO4,223 returnsDenver, CO2,527 returnsMap flows
22Daphne, AL7,537 in · 5,555 out1,9828.047.1%38 counterparts44.2%25 counterpartsMobile, AL1,002 returnsMobile, AL842 returnsMap flows
23Lake Havasu City, AZ7,036 in · 5,267 out1,7698.060.8%26 counterparts47.9%21 counterpartsRiverside, CA1,127 returnsPhoenix, AZ565 returnsMap flows
24Palm Bay, FL20,098 in · 15,118 out4,9807.971.2%107 counterparts62.1%75 counterpartsOrlando, FL2,482 returnsOrlando, FL1,961 returnsMap flows

The visible table is intentionally limited for reading. The CSV contains every row that passes the printed inclusion rule.

Reproduce the screen

Inclusion first, interpretation second.

Include a current RentMarker metro only when it has positive ACS population, published IRS inbound and outbound tax-return household totals, at least one directly mapped inbound and outbound inter-metro pair, and identifiable leading counterparts in both directions.

Methodology version: v19

Method

  1. All-US inbound and outbound counts are IRS county flows aggregated through exact current CBSA county membership after same-market moves are removed from both totals.
  2. Each direct county pair is read once from the IRS inflow-side record, maps both county ends independently to exact CBSA membership and excludes pairs whose ends resolve to the same metro.
  3. Net migration per 1,000 divides inbound minus outbound tax-return households by ACS population and multiplies by 1,000.
  4. Mapped coverage divides direct inter-metro households by the corresponding all-US total; leading-counterpart concentration divides the largest direct flow by all mapped flows in that direction.

Counter-signals

  • A large net count can be modest relative to population, while a high per-resident rate can come from a small metro.
  • The leading corridor may represent a small share of all movement, so the coverage and concentration measures should be read with the count.
  • Mover adjusted gross income is not renter income, disposable income or proof of housing demand.

Limitations

  • IRS migration omits non-filers and measures tax-return household moves, not every resident, renter, lease or reason for moving.
  • Direct mapped coverage excludes county pairs whose other end falls outside a current RentMarker metro; missing movement is not assigned to a nearby market.
  • IRS 2022-2023 flows, ACS population and current OMB metro membership cover different release periods, and the atlas is descriptive rather than a forecast or recommendation.
Move from market to deal

Use the study to narrow the question—not to skip underwriting.

Open a market for its supply, affordability, migration and risk context. Compare a deliberate substitute, then bring a real property price, rent and expenses into the stress test.