- 12 -
call, the time of day, and the distance from point of origin to
point of termination;
(E) prohibit relay operators from failing to fulfill the
obligations of common carriers by refusing calls or limiting the
length of calls that use TRS;
(F) prohibit relay operators from disclosing the content of
any relayed conversation and from keeping records of the content
of any such conversation beyond the duration of the call; and
(G) prohibit relay operators from intentionally altering a
relayed conversation.
47 U.S.C. sec. 225 (d) and (e).
As mentioned supra, all States utilize TRS and follow the
aforementioned requirements. Since Congress mandated the
adoption of TRS by common carriers, any place with a telephone is
currently in compliance with the ADA. Petitioners argue that the
program is an alternative to TRS and provides improvements to
TRS. However, as we have stated previously: “If the expenditure
was not made to enable compliance with the ADA, then the
expenditure does not qualify for credit under section 44.” Fan
v. Commissioner, supra at 39.
In this case, petitioners’ subscription to the program did
not enable them to comply with the ADA--they already were in
compliance with the ADA through the use of TRS. Therefore, the
cost of the program is not an eligible access expenditure within
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011