by Craig Brightup, The Brightup Group LLC

On March 7, the U.S. Dept. of Labor (DOL) released a proposed regulation to update the salary-level test for determining when a “white collar” employee is exempt from earning overtime. The Obama Administration issued a regulation in 2016 that would have doubled the salary level from $23,660/year ($455/week) to $47,476/ year ($913/week), but it was halted by a federal judge in a challenge led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the basis that the threshold was so high it made the duties test no longer relevant and thus was beyond the statutory authority of the Secretary of Labor. That decision is currently on appeal in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals while the Trump Administration proposes a more modest update to the overtime regulation, which was last adjusted in 2004.

The proposed rule raises the threshold to $35,308/year ($679/week) and, as advocated by business organizations, reverts to methodology used in the 2004 rule that focused on the 20th percentile of full-time wage earners in the lowest income region of the country (identified as the South) and the retail industry as the baseline. It also makes no changes to the duties tests and has no auto-update feature, both of which are key points for business as well. However, the regulation does seek comments on conducting regularly scheduled rulemakings to update the salary threshold.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE...

Western States Roofing Contractors Association

---

Not a Member of Western States RCA?  Click Here to Join!
or call Toll Free 1-800-725-0333

---

Courtesy of WSRCA Legal Counsel: Trent Cotney, Cotney Construction Law

Early last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the start of an all new approach to its safety inspections—through drones. Since its introduction, at least nine inspections were conducted with camera-enabled drones. Of these nine inspections, the majority were used due to hazardous circumstances on-site such as a recent collapse, fire or explosion.

Drone usage during safety inspections provides OSHA with a quick and detailed view of an employer’s facility, and possibly a more expansive view of what might have been seen by an in-person inspector. While this might be good for OSHA as it significantly cuts down time needed to perform such an inspection, employers should be wary of the ramifications.

The good news? Drone usage for OSHA’s safety inspections doesn’t come without restriction. In an eight-page memo addressed to its regional administrators on May 18, 2018, OSHA laid out the guidelines and procedures it must adhere to in order to use Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) a/k/a drones. One established limitation on this type of inspection is employer consent. This means that employers have the right to say no to the little robot flying above your worksite. But is “no” really the best answer?

Although employers have a 4th Amendment right to object to the expansion of an overbroad search, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you should deny OSHA the ability to inspect your site through drone usage. By making this objection, OSHA is then required to obtain a search warrant to inspect your property. This objection, only delaying the inevitable, might not be worth getting on OSHA’s bad side. Instead, see if you can work with OSHA to create a limit in the scope of the search and participate in the drone flight planning, which in turn will help address concerns regarding the expansive view that comes with drone inspection.

Another concern to watch out for is the possibility of OSHA being granted its request for a Blanket Public COA from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This Blanket Public COA will allow OSHA to use drones anywhere in the country. If granted, it is unclear how the employer consent will play into this, if at all.

---

LEGAL  DISCLAIMER

All rights reserved.  All content (text, trademarks, illustrations, reports, photos, logos, graphics, files, designs, arrangements, etc.) in this Technical Opinion (“Opinion”) is the intellectual property of Western States Roofing Contractors Association (WSRCA) and is protected by the applicable protective laws governing intellectual property. The Opinion is intended for the exclusive use by its members as a feature of their membership. This document is intended to be used for educational purposes only, and no one should act or rely solely on any information contained in this Opinion as it is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney or construction engineer with specific project knowledge. Neither WSRCA nor any of its, contractors, subcontractors, or any of their employees, directors, officers, agents, or assigns make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party’s use (or the results of such use) of any information or process disclosed in the Opinion.  Reference herein to any general or specific commercial product, process or service does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation by WSRCA. References are provided as citations and aids to help identify and locate other resources that may be of interest, and are not intended to state or imply that WSRCA sponsors, is affiliated or associated with, or is legally responsible for the content reflected in those resources. WSRCA has no control over those resources and the inclusion of any references does not necessarily imply the recommendation or endorsement of same.

A year after passing “green roof” law, Denver suddenly the focus of 20-year “cool roof” debate

New law would force affected property owners to choose between creating green space, installing solar panels and saving energy.  

Courtesy of: The Denver Post  

The days of sprawling black roofs in Denver may be ending — but they won’t go quietly.

The Denver City Council will decide Monday whether to create a “cool roof” law for the city. The big hope is that requiring reflective, light-colored roofs on large buildings would lower ambient temperatures, fighting back against the city’s heat-island effect. “It’s not groundbreaking in Denver, but it’s one of the biggest” of the new cool roof laws, said Kurt Shickman, executive director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance.

“They’ll join a small number of big cities.” The change would affect new construction and reroofing projects for buildings over 25,000 square feet — not your typical home renovations. The new law also would force affected property owners to choose between creating green space, installing solar panels and saving energy. And, for once, many developers are looking forward to a new rule: It would replace the “green roof” law that voters approved last year, which would have required more costly rooftop gardens. The proposal has the support of green-roof organizer Brandon Rietheimer.  

Roofers vs. reformers

But even this smaller change has put the city in the middle of an ongoing debate between roofers and reformers. The council on Monday is likely to hear from industry representatives who say that the cool-roof mandate is an oversimplified approach for a complicated problem.

“Mandating a single component of a roofing assembly is just not what is good design practice,” said Ellen Thorp, associate executive director of the EPDM Roofing Association, which represents manufacturers of EPDM, a rubber membrane for roofs.

The trade association argued in a letter that cool roofs can cause two major problems in colder climates like Denver’s. First, they can purportedly accumulate moisture. Second, they are meant to retain less heat, which means heating bills can be higher. “Some of the best roofs on the market really were not going to be allowed, period,” said Jeff Johnston, president of the Colorado Roofing Association, who says that much of his Steamboat Springs business is still focused on dark roofs.  “Why eliminate it?”  

Attempting to adapt

The reason is simple, according to Katrina Managan, the city staffer who coordinated the roof revision. “The reason to do them is to adapt to climate change,” she said.

Denver could see a full month of 100-degree days in typical years at the end of the century, according to projections from the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization for a “high” warming scenario. And the impact will be worse in urban areas, where dry, unshaded rooftops and pavement are baked by the sun and heat the air around them. Urban environments can average up to 5 degrees hotter than the surrounding rural areas, and the difference can be much greater at times, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Cool roofs address part of that problem: They reflect the sun’s energy away and stay up to 60 degrees cooler than traditional roofs, the EPA reported. “It will save Denver a tremendous amount of money. It will create a huge amount of benefit through cooling. And it will set the example,” Shickman said. “It really does add to the argument that says we really should be considering this for almost all of our big American cities.”

City research found that the cool roof mandate would be more effective than the green roof initiative in combating heat, since the green roof requirement only covered parts of rooftops.

The bottom line?

Major cities began adopting cool-roof requirements nearly 20 years ago, with northerly Chicago among the first. It’s been joined by Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City and Los Angeles, among others, according to GCCA. Much of the southern United States is now covered by the requirements, and San Francisco in 2017 adopted the first “green roofs” requirement.

“We’ve been in an epic fight between the industry and those of us on my side who are trying to push this forward,” Shickman said. Thorp, the EPDM Roofing Association representative, pointed to research to argue that Denver should proceed cautiously. Because cool roofs don’t get as hot, they can accumulate more condensation, which requires specialized designs to combat.

And she said that a cooler roof could mean higher heating costs and thus more carbon emissions in colder Denver. She acknowledged that the law would hurt sales of EPDM: Competing materials are cheaper and more popular for cool roofs. But she said that her clients also make those other materials. “They’re going to make the sale one way or another,” she said. Shickman countered that the companies are more heavily invested in EPDM, and therefore have a financial motivation to lobby against cool roofs.

Other materials “have been eating the lunch of EPDM,” he said. Thorp declined to disclose sales figures for the companies, but said the organization’s “primary driver” was to give roofers options. Cool roofs are already popular A city poll of roofers found that about 70 percent of new roofs in Denver are “cool.” “What we’re tending to find is most companies now are wanting to go to a light roof,” said Scott Nakayama, director of operations for Denver-based North-West Roofing.

“The amount that they’re going to save, as far as heating and cooling bills, tends to stand out.” His company has been installing about 20 light-colored roofs per year, and hasn’t encountered any of the issues raised by the EPDM Roofing Association, he said. Shickman points to this apparent lack of complaints as evidence that a well-designed cool roof can avoid moisture and other issues. They do come at a cost premium: Cool roofs can cost about 1.5 percent more than a traditional roof, according to city-commissioned research by Stantec, the engineering company.

Thorp said that estimate is too low. If the law is approved, it could take several years before it starts to have a regional effect, since roofs generally only need replacement every 20 years.

The rest of the details Under the change, developers of new builders can choose among the following options.

·       Install green space on the building or on the ground.

·       Pay for green space somewhere else.

·       Install renewable energy or a mix of renewable energy and green space.

·       Design the building for 12 percent energy savings compared to city standards, or achieve 5 percent savings plus green space.

·       Achieve either LEED Gold or Enterprise Green Communities certification for green design.

Existing buildings will have similar types of options, with different details.  

---

LEGAL  DISCLAIMER

All rights reserved.  All content (text, trademarks, illustrations, reports, photos, logos, graphics, files, designs, arrangements, etc.) in this Technical Opinion (“Opinion”) is the intellectual property of Western States Roofing Contractors Association (WSRCA) and is protected by the applicable protective laws governing intellectual property. The Opinion is intended for the exclusive use by its members as a feature of their membership. This document is intended to be used for educational purposes only, and no one should act or rely solely on any information contained in this Opinion as it is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney or construction engineer with specific project knowledge. Neither WSRCA nor any of its, contractors, subcontractors, or any of their employees, directors, officers, agents, or assigns make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party’s use (or the results of such use) of any information or process disclosed in the Opinion.  Reference herein to any general or specific commercial product, process or service does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation by WSRCA. References are provided as citations and aids to help identify and locate other resources that may be of interest, and are not intended to state or imply that WSRCA sponsors, is affiliated or associated with, or is legally responsible for the content reflected in those resources. WSRCA has no control over those resources and the inclusion of any references does not necessarily imply the recommendation or endorsement of same.

By: Trent Cotney, Cotney Construction Law

8621 E Dr. MLK Jr. Blvd, Tampa, FL 33610
866.303.5868 | tcotney@cotneycl.com

---

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a confined space is one that is large enough for an employee to enter fully and perform assigned work, such space is not designed for continuous occupancy, and is limited or restricted in means of entry or exit. Some examples include tanks, storage bins, silos, and underground vaults to name a few. A confined space is determined to be a permit-required confined space if has one or more of the following: potential hazardous atmosphere; material with potential to engulf an entrant; can cause entrant to be trapped or asphyxiated by inwardly converging walls/floors sloping downward, or any other serious safety/health hazard.

In order to better understand the allocation of responsibility under OSHA’s confined space standards, it’s helpful to understand the definitions of the parties involved with the permit space.  A competent person is one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees and who has the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.  A controlling contractor is the employer that has overall responsibility for construction at the worksite.  A host employer is the employer that owns or manages the property where the construction is taking place.  The entry employer, which is a new term to the standard, refers to any employer who decides that an employee it directs will enter a permit space; in other words, this may be a roofing contractor, whether a contractor or subcontractor.   An attendant is an individual stationed outside one or more permit spaces who assesses the status of authorized entrants and who must perform duties specified by section 29 CFR 1926.1209.  An entry supervisor refers to the qualified person responsible for determining if acceptable entry conditions are present at a permit space where entry is planned, for authorizing entry and overseeing entry operations, and for terminating entry as required.

Before beginning work on a worksite, a competent person must identify all confined spaces and permit spaces.  If the worksite contains a permit space, the roofing contractor must inform exposed employees and the controlling contractor of the existence and location of, and the danger posed by, each permit space.  If employees will not be entering permit spaces, the roofing contractor must take measures to prevent those employees from entering.  If employees will enter a permit space, the roofing contractor must have a written permit space program.  The OSHA website provides an example program for reference.

Before operations begin, the host employer must coordinate with the controlling contractor and provide information about the location, hazards, and precautions taken with regard to the permit space.  The controlling contractor must communicate that information to and coordinate with each entity which may enter the permit space or whose activities may result in a hazard in the permit space.  The controlling contractor must ensure that multiple entry employers do not create hazards for each other.  The entry employer must inform the controlling contractor of the permit space program that it will follow and the foreseeable hazards in each permit space.

As part of the permit space program, each entry employer must:

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE...

---

Author’s note:  The information contained in this article is for general educational information only.  This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.

Trent Cotney, CEO of Cotney Construction Law, is an advocate for the roofing industry, General Counsel of Western States Roofing Contractors Association (WSRCA), Florida Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Association (FRSA), Roofing Technology Think Tank (RT3), Tennessee Association of Roofing Contractors (TARC), and several other local roofing associations. For more information, contact the author at 866.303.5868 or go to www.cotneycl.com. 

By: Larry Oxenham, Senior Advisor, American Society for Asset Protection

There are many financial and legal myths that circulate through society. A belief in these myths may result in serious problems. In a commencement address at Yale University, President John F. Kennedy taught, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” Mark Twain echoed this thought when he said, “It isn’t what we don’t know that kills us, it’s everything we know that ain’t so.”

Myth 1: I Will Never Get Sued

If you own a business, you have exposure to many types of lawsuits even if you personally have done nothing wrong. For example, if someone injures themselves on your property (even if he/she were trespassing), you as the property owner would be liable for damages through what is called premise liability. Last year the average premise liability verdict was $2,001,754—and an award of $2.5 million or more was just as likely as an award of $50,000-$99,999.

Businesses also have exposure to employee liability. You could be sued for workplace accidents, negligent entrustment, wrongful termination, gender bias, racial bias, sexual orientation bias, religious bias, sexual harassment, and racial harassment. A lawsuit for any of these items could result in a multimillion dollar judgment. For example, one employee received an award of $86.7 million to compensate him for an accident at work that left him paralyzed (Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corp.).

Owning a business and not having protection against lawsuits, would be like living in an earthquake, hurricane, or flood zone and not purchasing the necessary insurance to protect your assets. Once the disaster hits, it is too late to buy insurance. Likewise, once a lawsuit hits, it is too late to set up the needed legal structures. You need to have them in place before the disaster hits. Once a lawsuit is filed against you, the transfer of assets to protective legal entities may be interpreted as “fraudulent conveyance” and can be unwound.

Therefore, it is essential to have the legal structures for lawsuit protection and prevention in place before you are sued. If you are not properly structured, it only takes one lawsuit to lose everything.

Myth 2: I Should Operate My Business as a Sole Proprietorship

Many attorneys and accountants recommend that their clients operate their business as a sole proprietorship because of the simplicity it presents when they file their tax returns. However, there are two major problems with operating as a sole proprietor. First, while a sole proprietorship allows a person to deduct most business expenses, there are tax deductions and reduction strategies that apply to S-Corps and C-Corps which cannot be used as a sole proprietor. The second major problem is that a sole proprietorship provides little protection against lawsuits. If your sole proprietorship is sued, all of your business and personal assets could be taken to satisfy the judgment. Even if you are sued personally as a result of a car accident or injury at your home, all of your business assets are at risk of being taken.

Myth 3: A Corporation Protects My Assets from Lawsuits

The corporation is a good management and tax reduction tool, but it is a poor lawsuit protection tool. If your corporation is sued, all of the assets (with equity) owned by your corporation can be taken to satisfy the judgment. The corporation does provide some protection of personal assets with what is called the “corporate veil.” The corporate veil is supposed to prevent a creditor from going after personal assets to satisfy a business debt. However, the corporate veil is often pierced, enabling your personal assets to be seized to satisfy a judgment against your business.

Myth 4: Asset Protection is Not Possible

We live in a very specialized world. For example, doctors specialize in a specific area of medicine (orthopedics, radiology, cardiology, etc.). There is no difference in the legal world. There are specialists for every part of our legal lives. There are attorneys who specialize in patents, family law, bankruptcy, personal injury, prosecution, estate planning, etc. Asset protection is a highly specialized area of law. A survey by the American Bar Association showed that less than one percent of attorneys claimed asset protection as their specialty. As a result, most attorneys and accountants are unfamiliar with the strategies and tools available to protect 100% of your business and personal assets from being seized in a lawsuit.

Myth 5: I Should Put My Assets in My Lower-Liability Spouse’s Name

One of the strategies recommended by less-than-experienced advisors, is to put assets in a lower-liability spouse’s name. This may provide a modest amount of protection in the event of a lawsuit, but there are four significant drawbacks to this strategy. First, it must be realized that courts carefully scrutinize conveyances between relatives and can invalidate the transfer of property regardless of when the conveyance took place. Second, your spouse may be declared an implied officer in your business and be named in a lawsuit. Third, your spouse could get sued personally. For example, if your spouse were involved in a car accident and someone was killed, a lawsuit would most likely follow; and every single asset in the spouse’s name would be at risk. Finally, having assets in your spouse’s name can cause serious problems in the event of a divorce.

Myth 6: I Only Need a Single Entity (LLC or Corporation)

Typically, a combination of entities will be the best course to take, rather than the use of one corporation or LLC. Most advisors are unaware of how to gain the best tax advantages and ensure 100% asset protection through the use of multiple entities. To ensure your assets are protected, you must separate your safe and risky assets into separate legal entities. The strategy of using multiple entities will minimize taxes and protect 100% of your assets.

Myth 7: Liability Insurance Will Protect Me Against Lawsuits

You may feel you are protected from lawsuits because you have liability insurance; however, insurance is like a hospital gown—you only think you are covered. Liability insurance does provide some protection against lawsuits, but it is limited in its coverage. Juries often will award judgments in excess of liability insurance coverage. Exclusions in your policy may also result in your insurance company denying coverage and leaving you liable. As judgments have increased over the years, some advisors simply tell professionals to get more liability insurance. This is problematic, as larger policies are costly and often serve as homing beacons for trial attorneys, who look for the deepest pockets in which to reach.

Conclusion

The authors of the book The Millionaire Next Door did an extensive study of millionaires to find the determining factors that resulted in a high net worth. The research concluded that hiring high-grade financial advisors was directly related to the propensity to accumulate wealth. An attorney who specializes in asset protection is one high-grade advisor business owners need. An asset protection attorney will ensure you avoid the myths in this article and will ensure your assets are properly structure for lawsuit protection, tax reduction, and estate planning.

Larry Oxenham is presenting “What Every Insurance Agent Needs to Know about Lawsuit Prevent, Tax Reduction, and Estate Planning Strategies” on Tuesday, October 17^th from 8:45 to 10:45 am at the IIABSC's Annual Convention at the Marriott Grande Dunes in Myrtle Beach. 

By Kenneth S. Grossbart
Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman

---

The subject of Arbitration has been discussed by me in previous articles. This article again addresses the concept of Arbitration but with a twist.

Arbitration is an alternative form of resolving disputes. It is an alternative to the filing of a lawsuit and proceeding with your case through the court system. Arbitration is a very popular form of dispute resolution and oftentimes is faster and cheaper than going through the court system.

Arbitration is a consensual process which means in order for the parties to arbitrate a dispute all parties must consent to having the matter arbitrated. Oftentimes that consent comes in the form of an Arbitration Clause that is contained in the contract between the parties. In this set of facts, Company A signed an Advertising Insertion Order with Company B. The Order included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes. During the course of the relationship between Company A and Company B, Company A accumulated an unpaid balance with Company B. Company A filed a Demand for Arbitration seeking damages in the amount of the unpaid balance. Company B agreed that they signed the Order but claimed that the Order was unenforceable because Company A’s products were fraudulent. Regardless of the claims of Company B, Company B voluntarily participated in the Arbitration and in fact asked the Arbitrator to issue an Order requiring one of the parties to post a Bond. Company B later rescinded its participation in the Arbitration proceedings when the Arbitrator declined to issue the Order. The Arbitrator ultimately found for Company A and the trial court confirmed the Arbitration Award. Company B challenged the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction arguing that he did not consent to arbitrate the dispute.

The matter was reviewed and ruled upon by the appellate court. The appellate court confirmed the lower court’s ruling finding that the parties did in fact consent to Arbitration. The appellate court found that Company B’s conduct and participation in the Arbitration showed that he clearly and unmistakably consented to Arbitration. First Company B did not object to Arbitration, they willingly participated in the Arbitration proceedings, availed themselves of the Arbitrator’s authority when asked to have the Arbitrator rule upon the posting of a Bond and thereafter tried to rescind his voluntarily participation after the Arbitrator denied the request. Thus the court found that Company B’s actions constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that he consented to the Arbitration proceedings.

The take away from this set of facts is that if you challenge the jurisdiction of an Arbitration Tribunal, it must be done at the beginning of your case. You cannot temporarily participate in the Arbitration proceedings and then at some point in time when you don’t like how the Arbitration is proceeding attempt to back out. Courts will consider your participation to constitute a clear and unmistakable evidence of your consent to arbitrate.

---

Kenneth Grossbart is recognized as one of the foremost authorities in California construction law. Over the past 35 years, Ken has become a respected speaker on Mechanic’s Liens and other construction related issues. Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman provides this information as a service to its friends & clients and it does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the reader. This document is of a general nature and is not a substitute for legal advice. Since laws change frequently, contact an attorney before using this information. Ken Grossbart can be reached at Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman: (818) 760-2000 or by E-Mail at , or at ksg@agrlaw.com

June / July ‘18

www.agrlaw.com

Regulatory and Tax Reform Update

By: Craig Brightup, The Brightup Group LLC

When President Trump took office, he signed Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 to cut federal regulations.  EO 13771 says no new rules can be issued without cutting two existing regulations, and EO 13777 put White House monitors in the agencies to enforce deregulation efforts.  As a result, the 2017 Federal Register contained 61,308 pages of regulatory actions, which is the lowest count since 1993 and a 36% drop from 95,894 pages in 2016, the highest level ever recorded.

Unfortunately, one of the rules finalized under President Obama that went into effect under President Trump is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) silica rule.  However, the federal government’s Spring Regulatory Agenda was released in May and an OSHA entry announces it will publish a Request for Information (RFI) to revise the construction silica standard’s Table 1 engineering controls.  

Though publication of the RFI in the Federal Register is probably a few months down the road, OSHA’s commitment to do an RFI could ultimately lead to a reopening of the rule.  This positive development is a result of negotiations with the Construction Industry Safety Coalition, which is also working with OSHA to develop a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the rule’s complex set of requirements. 

OSHA also appears not to be aggressively enforcing the rule while negotiations are ongoing, at least in Fed-OSHA states, and hopefully President Trump’s pick to head the agency, Scott Mugno, will soon be confirmed by the Senate in order to be involved in the RFI before it’s published.

On the tax reform front, it bears repeating that IRC Sec. 179’s new expensing provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are a big victory for the roofing industry and WSRCA members.  In fact, WSRCA members can have their cake and eat it, too!   

Sec. 179 allows businesses to purchase needed equipment and write-off the full amount, or a major portion of it, on their taxes for that year.  Qualifying property includes certain vehicles and virtually all construction equipment and machinery.  But, an even bigger breakthrough for the roofing industry and its customers is that Sec. 179 qualified property now includes improvements to nonresidential roofs!

The new limit on the total amount of Sec. 179 property a business can purchase each year before the deduction is totally phased-out is $2.5 million, and the annual limit for the deduction is now $1 million.  As such, a roofing contractor can use Sec. 179 to buy qualifying business equipment and then sell a commercial roof to a property owner who can write-off up to $1 million in the year the roof is purchased.  And the $1 million annual deduction and $2.5 million maximum business investment limits are permanent and indexed for annual inflation starting in 2019.

Also, don’t forget the IRC Sec. 168(k) Bonus Depreciation Deduction, which has been raised to 100 percent for qualifying property.  This generally covers property with a depreciable tax life of 20 years or less and the IRS is expected to clarify eligibility for full bonus depreciation in June.

The Western Roofing Expo will also take place in June, and I look forward to seeing you at the Legislative Luncheon on Monday, June 11, where I’ll be joined once again by NRCA CEO Reid Ribble to discuss these and other industry issues.