- 10 - $17,445 cost of the equipment, subject to the annual credit limit of $5,000. In distinction to the facts involved in Fan v. Commissioner, supra, prior to purchasing the automatic refractor and the instrument stand, petitioner herein was not able to provide vision testing services to some disabled patients. Petitioner’s testimony was credible on this point. During 1997, petitioner’s optometric practice was the only optometric practice located in a three-county area in Nevada. The fact that the automatic refractor was also used by petitioner to treat nondisabled patients is not fatal to petitioner’s entitlement to the disabled access tax credit. We find no exclusive use or benefit test in section 44(a). Certainly, a wheelchair ramp into a restaurant for disabled access will be used by nondisabled customers of the restaurant, and nothing in section 44 or the regulations would deprive the restaurant owner of the disabled access tax credit with regard thereto. See 28 C.F.R. sec. 36.304(b)(1) (2002). We conclude that petitioner purchased the automatic refractor and the instrument stand in order to treat disabled patients and to comply with ADA’s prohibition of discrimination against disabled individuals. We also conclude -- in light of the size of petitioner’s practice compared to the cost of the equipment, the benefit to his practice, and the benefit to thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011