- 5 -
pencils, and notepads had to be disinfected or disposed of due to
health requirements. Petitioner also found use of the VCR and
television to be inconvenient because the equipment had to be
brought into and removed from the examination room during the
examination.
Prior to purchasing the system, petitioner did not refuse
treatment to a prospective patient because the patient had a
hearing impairment. He did not purchase the system at the
suggestion or recommendation of one of his hearing-impaired
patients, and during the years in issue he did not limit the use
of the system to his hearing-impaired patients. Nevertheless,
when compared to handwritten notes, he considers the system to be
a more effective and efficient way to communicate with his
hearing-impaired patients. When used in the examination of a
hearing-impaired patient, the system, in some instances, reduced
the need for petitioner to communicate with the patient by
handwritten notes. Petitioner further found that if he used the
system during the examination of a hearing-impaired patient, the
patient was more likely to understand and agree to any
recommended treatment. According to promotional materials,
“studies show case acceptance increases by approximately 30
percent with an intraoral camera system.”
Petitioners filed a timely 1995 Federal income tax return.
On a Form 8826, Disabled Access Credit, included with that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011