TOL
#Hi, <UNK>.
This is <UNK> <UNK>.
We've looked at EB-5 but really haven't delved into it.
There are some issues related to long-term job creation.
We're primarily building condominiums.
We've been able to access capital very easily given our scope, our size, and financial relationships.
So EB-5 comes with some challenges, some timing issues, and other things so we've actually kind of stayed away from it.
We have a lot of good joint venture partners that we deal with, very institutional quality.
So if we were going to joint venture a deal, that's a more likely way we would go.
Thanks, <UNK>.
38%.
So 38% is a pretty normalized rate.
The federal government wants 35% from us and the states want something in the neighborhood of 4.5% from us.
So tax planning saves us a little bit.
In 2015, our 32.4% number benefited from a settlement and reserve release with a particular state in the second quarter that was in the neighborhood of $14 million, and we also had a $5 million or $6 million state valuation allowance reversal in the fourth quarter.
We do not expect either of those two items to recur next year.
The assumption is that there are no impairments.
You've restated it correctly.
Sure.
So the impairment was a community in suburban Philadelphia that accounted for almost all of that impairment, north of $4 million of the $4.4 million.
And the reserves for warranty and litigation are revisions of our estimated costs associated with the stucco disclosures we mentioned last year.
I think that is a similar situation but the amount is not that much.
If you were to ask me what the reserve was for, I would tell you it was additional water infiltration stucco repair costs.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chad.
Thanks, everyone.
Have a wonderful holiday season, and we'll see you soon.
