- 14 -
it must have been made to enable an eligible small business to
comply with the applicable requirements under the ADA. See
Arevalo v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 255; Fan v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 32, 38-39 (2001). Consequently, a person who does not
have an obligation to become compliant with the requirements set
forth in the ADA could never make an eligible access expenditure.
Petitioner, like the taxpayers in the other Alpha Telcom cases,
had no obligation to become compliant with the ADA.
As relevant here, the requirements set forth in the ADA
apply only to (1) persons who own, lease, lease to, or operate
certain “public accommodations” and (2) “common carriers” of
telephone voice transmission services. See 42 U.S.C. sec.
12182(a) (2000); see also 47 U.S.C. sec. 225(c) (2000).
Petitioner did not own, lease, lease to, or operate a public
accommodation during the taxable years at issue, nor was he a
“common carrier” of telephone voice transmission services during
those years. Accordingly, petitioner was under no obligation to
become compliant with the requirements set forth in the ADA. See
42 U.S.C. sec. 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii); 47 U.S.C. sec.
153(10); 47 U.S.C. sec. 225(a)(1) and (c). Because petitioner
did not own the pay telephones in which he invested and had no
involvement in their operation, petitioner was not actively
engaged in the provision of services to anyone as a result of his
investment in the pay telephones. Therefore, petitioner’s
investments in the telephones were not eligible access
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007