Stephen T. Fan and Landa C. Fan - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          consequently, the system does not qualify for the disabled access           
          credit.  Respondent’s determination in this regard is therefore             
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              

                                                  Decision will be                    
                                             entered for respondent.                  

               4 Respondent also argues that the purchase of the intraoral            
          camera system was an unreasonable and unnecessary expenditure for           
          the purpose of making aurally delivered materials available to              
          hearing-impaired patients.  Sec. 44(c)(3).  Because we have                 
          determined that the system is not an “eligible access                       
          expenditure”, we do not address this issue.                                 

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011