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