- 11 -
It is our view that petitioner did not purchase the system,
in lieu of using handwritten notes, so as to be in compliance
with the ADA. Section 44 was enacted as part of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, sec.
11611(a), 104 Stat. 1388-501, and is intended to complement the
ADA by providing “relief to small businesses making the
accommodations required by the ADA.” 136 Cong. Rec. S12852
(daily ed. Sept. 12, 1990) (statement by Senator Kohl). The
legislative history indicates that the Congress was concerned
that the requirements contained in the ADA may impose a severe
financial burden on certain small businesses. See H. Conf. Rept.
101-964, at 1138-1140 (1990). To alleviate the burden, the
Congress provided small businesses with a tax credit for a
portion of the costs incurred in complying with the ADA. See id.
If the expenditure was not made to enable compliance with the
ADA, then the expenditure does not qualify for credit under
section 44.
In this case, petitioner’s acquisition of the system did not
enable him to comply with the ADA–-he was already in compliance
with the ADA through the use of handwritten notes to communicate
with his hearing-impaired patients. Furthermore, the system
is not a replacement or substitute for the use of handwritten
notes. It follows that cost of the system is not an eligible
access expenditure within the meaning of section 44(c), and,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011