- 9 - the use of handwritten notes to communicate with hearing impaired patients and because the dentist had always been able to treat disabled patients, we disallowed the claimed disabled access credit. Id. at 37-39. We also noted that the intraoral camera system had a general applicability and usefulness to all of the dentist’s patients. Id. at 34. Relying on Fan, respondent argues that prior to purchasing the automatic refractor and the instrument stand at issue in this case petitioner already was in compliance with ADA and that because the automatic refractor and instrument stand had general applicability and usefulness in treating all of petitioner’s patients, petitioner should not be entitled to the section 44 disabled access tax credit relating to the cost of purchasing the equipment. Respondent also alleges that the automatic refractor and the instrument stand did not represent reasonable and necessary expenses of petitioner’s optometric practice. Petitioner argues that because the automatic refractor and the instrument stand enabled him to provide vision testing to disabled patients for whom petitioner previously had not been able to provide treatment and whom petitioner previously had referred elsewhere, petitioner’s purchase of the automatic refractor and the instrument stand enabled petitioner to comply with the requirements of ADA, and he should be entitled to the section 44 disabled access tax credit with respect to the totalPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011