- 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 total
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011