Stephen T. Fan and Landa C. Fan - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          individuals with hearing impairments, the examples given include:           
               Qualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided                     
               transcription services, written materials, telephone                   
               handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices,                       
               assistive listening systems, telephones compatible with                
               hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and closed                 
               captioning, telecommunications devices for deaf persons                
               (TDD’s), videotext displays, or other effective methods                
               of making aurally delivered materials available to                     
               individuals with hearing impairments.                                  
          28 C.F.R. sec. 36.303(b)(1).                                                
               The ADA requires businesses to ensure effective                        
          communication through the use of auxiliary aids and services.               
          Costs associated with complying with this requirement are                   
          “eligible access expenditures” for purposes of the disabled                 
          access credit.  Sec. 44(c)(2).  Petitioner argues that the                  
          purchase of the system enables his business to meet this                    
          requirement with respect to hearing-impaired individuals and,               
          therefore, the cost of the system qualifies as an eligible access           
          expenditure.  For the following reasons, we disagree.                       
               At the outset, we note that petitioner was already in                  
          compliance with the ADA at the time that he purchased the system.           
          Petitioner did not discriminate against, or refuse to treat,                
          hearing impaired individuals “on the basis of disability”.  42              
          U.S.C. sec. 12182(a).  Nor did he fail to take necessary steps to           
          ensure that no individual with a disability is denied services              
          because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services.  See 42              
          U.S.C. sec. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).  He effectively communicated               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011