TPO vs Roof Restoration: NEED SOME IMPUT!

Under the IRS code roof maintenance is usually tax deductible for the year the expense had incurred. Roof restoration usually falls under "current expenses" and is 100% tax deductible. While a new roof is a "capital expense" whitch is amortized over the life of the property or 39.5 years that is how I always presented to property owners.

From a tax advantage I still think the roof restoration is a better bet- if there is a hail event and there is a claim involved that may change the whole premise and make the "tax" issue moot. Of course if the property owner has a ACV policy verses a RCV policy that also changes the game... I'm not sure; I'm not a tax guy.

Which is better for taxes? Restoration - emulsion or new - TPO ?

When I was a state licensed roofing contractor, the only contact I had with TPO was repairing/restoring it, most of my restorations were elastomeric and polyester (KM Coatings & Western Colloid)- Tim (roofguy) taught me about chopped fiberglass which I loved, especially on asphalt and gravel roofs- but with TPO costs coming down even with a 1.5" & 2" insulation board, now with good MFG backed warranties- (like GAF and even Carlisle), roof restoration appears to be losing one of its biggest attractions to property owners, lower cost.

I would recommend the emulsion/polyester system hands-down - especially over an existing BUR. Been a state licensed contractor since 1983. Personally, I don't like TPO, Although we haven't experienced the magnitude of TPO failures some have, I can say we still have the old Henry emulsion/poly systems still in use after 20+ years.

We primarily do TPO now, strictly due to the local industry standards, (sheeplism). We get shot down by the typical superior salesmanship of our not-so-bright competitors here - so we must do as in Rome......

Well they could at least use 60 mil. From what I've read 45 mil is really what made TPO look SO bad.

Knowing nearly nothing about emulsion roofs, I can't really compare. I know what I've seen Roofguy talk about.

TPO has some advantages on cut up jobs under 30 SQRS where it is impractical to fire up a chopping rig that does 100 sq. ft a minute, but everything else the emulsion roof is a better option.

First off, the Firestone TPO warranty probably has the same exclusions as the others and it's full of holes. The most troubling is that if the owner calls in a roof leak and it turns out to be an HVAC etc (as often happens) the building owner has to pay "investigative cost" or his warranty is null and void.

Secondly, any repairs may not be conducted by the installer, and the building owner has no control of who that contractor is.

Third, if the TPO spec is not removing loose gravel, weight could be an issue. The emulsion spec will result in a net weight LOSS on the deck of around 110 lbs per SQR.

Forth, they are not apples-to-apples specs. TPO is very lucky to last 10 years in Texas, and emulsion will last 25-40. That said, it is mostly a moot issue as the chances of either going 15 years without hail is slim.

Fifth, the emulsion spec is much more reliable and predictable in that if you have a leak it will be near the source. A TPO roof can leaks 70'+ from the source.

Roofers like it because it takes little investment in equipment or training, and you get to stay cleaner installing it. All of those things benefit the roofer, not the building owner.

Mike H I know you know TPO... Roofguy and Robert (Ford Roofing) I know you guys love CFE what say you?