About Todd A. Jones

Todd A. Jones is an attorney with and founding partner of Anderson Jones PLLC, Raleigh, N.C. He has extensive experience in construction law and litigation. Law Clerk Katie Dunn assisted with the article.

Recent Changes in Tax Legislation Could Save You or Cost You Beginning in 2018

The recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) is a sweeping tax package. Everyone in business — including roofers — should have at least a passing knowledge of what to expect beginning in tax year 2018. Most of the changes are effective for tax years beginning in 2018 and lasting through 2025.

Tax rates — personal and corporate. The new law imposes a new tax rate structure with seven tax brackets: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent. The top rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 37 percent and applies to taxable income above $500,000 for single taxpayers and $600,000 for married couples filing jointly.

The corporate income tax rate used to be graduated with a maximum cap at 35 percent. It was reduced to a flat 21 percent. The corporate tax rate reduction puts the United States in line with most of the rest of other developed nations. The reduction is designed to increase spending, increase jobs, increase employee salaries, foster corporate improvements, and continue to incentivize the overall economy.

Standard deduction. The new law increases the standard deduction to $24,000 for joint filers, $18,000 for heads of household, and $12,000 for singles and married taxpayers filing separately. Given these increases, many taxpayers will no longer be itemizing deductions. These figures will be indexed for inflation after 2018.

Exemptions. The new law suspends the deduction for personal exemptions. Thus, starting in 2018, taxpayers can no longer claim personal or dependency exemptions. The rules for withholding income tax on wages will be adjusted to reflect this change, but IRS was given the discretion to leave the withholding unchanged for 2018.

New deduction for “qualified business income.” Starting in 2018, taxpayers are allowed a deduction equal to 20 percent of “qualified business income,” otherwise known as “pass-through” income, i.e., income from partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole proprietorships. The income must be from a trade or business within the United States. Investment income does not qualify, nor do amounts received from an S corporation as reasonable compensation or from a partnership as a guaranteed payment for “services” provided to the trade or business. In other words, lawyers are out of luck! The deduction is not used in computing adjusted gross income, just taxable income. For taxpayers with taxable income above $157,500 ($315,000 for joint filers), (1) a limitation based on W-2 wages paid by the business and depreciable tangible property used in the business is phased in; and (2) income from the following trades or businesses is phased out of qualified business income: health, law, consulting, athletics, financial or brokerage services, or where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more employees or owners.

Child and family tax credit. The new law increases the credit for qualifying children (i.e., children under 17) to $2,000 from $1,000, and increases to $1,400 the refundable portion of the credit. It also introduces a new (nonrefundable) $500 credit for a taxpayer’s dependents who are not qualifying children. The adjusted gross income level at which the credits begin to be phased out has been increased to $200,000 or $400,000 for joint filers.

State and local property taxes. The itemized deduction for state and local income and property taxes is limited to a total of $10,000.00 starting in 2018.

Mortgage interest. Under the new law, mortgage interest on loans used to acquire a principal residence and a second home is only deductible on debt up to $750,000, starting with loans taken out in 2018. This sum is down from $1 million. There is no longer any deduction for interest on home equity loans, regardless of when the debt was incurred.

Miscellaneous itemized deductions. There is no longer a deduction for miscellaneous itemized deductions which were formerly deductible to the extent they exceeded 2 percent of adjusted gross income. This category included items such as tax preparation costs, investment expenses, union dues, and unreimbursed employee expenses.

Medical expenses. Under the new law, for 2017 and 2018, medical expenses are deductible to the extent they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income for all taxpayers. Previously, the adjusted gross income floor was 10 percent for most taxpayers.

Casualty and theft losses. The itemized deduction for casualty and theft losses has been suspended except for losses incurred in a federally declared disaster.

Overall limitation on itemized deductions. The new law suspends the overall limitation on itemized deductions that formerly applied to taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceeded specified thresholds.

Moving expenses. The deduction for job-related moving expenses has been eliminated, except for certain military personnel. The exclusion for moving expense reimbursements has also been suspended.

Health care “individual mandate.” Starting in 2019, there is no longer a penalty for individuals who fail to obtain minimum essential health coverage.

Estate and gift tax exemption. Effective for decedents dying, and gifts made, in 2018, the estate and gift tax exemption has been increased to roughly $11.2 million ($22.4 million for married couples).

A lot of the details of the simple descriptions listed above remain to be completely formalized, and some of it may still change. Stay aware of the tax revisions and consult with an attorney in your locale if you have any questions.

Fewer Contracts and More Coordination Point to Design-Build Becoming Even More Popular

When contractors and owners elect a certain project delivery method for their project, it can affect all aspects of the construction, including costs, time to complete the project and amount of exposure to liabilities for each involved party. Owners and designers have long viewed the “Project Delivery Method” as the comprehensive process including planning, design and construction required to execute and complete a building facility or other type of project. Choosing the right project delivery method is integral to a successful project. Currently, there are at least four types of common project delivery methods: construction management at risk (CMR), design-bid-build (DBB), design-build and multi-prime (MP). There is a growing trend showing the more traditional design-bid-build product delivery method is losing its appeal and other options, like the design-build delivery method, are taking its place.

To understand why the design-build process is growing in popularity, it is helpful to discuss three areas where the four processes are different: number of phases and essential parties, number of essential contracts and the liability exposure under the contracts within each method.


Traditional design-bid-build is the familiar, drawn-out process where the owner of the property contacts a designer to create plans and specifications. Once complete, the owner takes the plans and specifications and begins the bidding process. After a bid is accepted, only then can construction begin. The CMR and MP methods use similar processes, though the owners may contract to different parties instead of contracting with the general contractor (we’ll discuss this more later). Under design-bid-build, CMR and MP methods, a minimum of three players is necessary in every project: the owner, designer and the contractors in their various forms.

The design-build method uses an “integrated” process, whereby the designers and contractors are one-and-the-same entity. The process of designing and constructing occurs simultaneously and thus eliminates the lag time between an owner’s receipt of a design and the acceptance of a bid. Also, because there is only one entity performing the design and construction, the only two necessary “prime” parties are the owner of the project and the design-build entity.


Another closely related factor to the number of phases and essential parties is the number of contracts created during the project. The traditional design-bid-build project first requires the owner to form a contract with a designer that will design the building or project in isolation and without any input from the construction team. CMR operates similarly again; however, it allows for input from the construction team as to what materials would be the most cost-effective and merchantable for the desired purpose. In these two processes, two contracts exist: one between the owner and designer and one between the owner and construction-management constructor.

MP requires the owner to contract directly with each contractor and subcontractor instead of with one general contractor. Under this process, a minimum of two contracts exists between the owner and the designers and contractors, likely increasing as the size of the project increases.

Conversely, the design-build process merges the designer and builder into one entity. Because the one entity handles both jobs, the contracting process is streamlined and results in only one contract between the owner and design-build entity.


As the volume of contracts involved in the project increases, the more fragmented the liability exposure becomes. In the design bid-build, MP and CMR methods, the owner first secures the designs from the designing entity. When the owner hires the constructing entity, he or she warrants to the constructing entity that the designs and specifications are sufficient for its hired purpose. The designer and the contractors are independently responsible for their work product, but the owner is still held responsible for any representations made to either entity. Although the CMR method attempts to foster the communication between the designer and contractors, no contract exists between the two and, therefore, liability remains on the owner for all
representations made. Further, any change orders, which frequently arise, and any other “gaps” are solely the responsibility of the owner.

Design-build removes the wall that is frequently erected when construction projects go wrong. Frequently during litigation involving the design-bid-build process, designers will attempt to avoid liability by pointing the finger at the contractors and vice-versa. Design-build, by creating a merged entity including the designer and the contractor, places the responsibility of designing and constructing with that one entity, which facilitates problem resolution instead of gearing up for an adversarial proceeding. Therefore, the design-builder is responsible not only for designing the project so that it will satisfy the desired standards, but it must also complete the project required by the owner in the contract.

As for “gaps” with the design-build process, they are essentially eliminated. The entity is performing both roles. Should the owner provide the design-builder with prescriptive designs and specifications, however, the design-build contractor is the party
responsible for discovering any inconsistencies with the performance standards by which they are bound. Any consistencies found will be the financial responsibility of the owner.


It is easy to see why the design-build process is growing in popularity. Costs are decreased by streamlining the process in many ways: an overlapping process of concurrent designing and constructing, fewer required contracts, and the ability of the contracting entity to adapt to the changes in design and construction. Although liability exposure is more concentrated in the design-build entity than in the other methods, the benefits of coordination between the designer and contractor will surely outweigh its detriments.

In addition to making the project delivery process easier, fewer bumps along the way will surely decrease the time and costs associated with the completion of a project. As we follow the trend toward a more design-build-focused construction industry, we will likely experience a positive effect on the litigation process, where claims will arise only between two parties as opposed to the requisite three parties in a traditional design-bid-build-based action.