B-166415, AUG. 19, 1969
Highlights
CIVIL PAY - TRANSFERS - REAL ESTATE EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DECISION TO CERTITYING OFFICER OF FOREST SERVICE CONCERNING REAL ESTATE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT TO TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE WHO SOLD RESIDENCE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON 6-ACRE LOT. 65 PERCENT COVERED BY SCRUB OAK MAY BE ALLOWED REAL ESTATE EXPENSES FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY ON BASIS THAT WHERE THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. PELLISSIER SOLD HIS RESIDENCE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON A LOT OF APPROXIMATELY 6 ACRES AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION IN ROSEBURG. IN THAT DECISION THE CLAIMANT LIVED IN A RESIDENCE ON A PRODUCTIVE FARM OF ABOUT 40 ACRES AND IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE PRO RATA COSTS INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE ALLOWABLE.
B-166415, AUG. 19, 1969
CIVIL PAY - TRANSFERS - REAL ESTATE EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DECISION TO CERTITYING OFFICER OF FOREST SERVICE CONCERNING REAL ESTATE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT TO TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE WHO SOLD RESIDENCE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON 6-ACRE LOT. EMPLOYEE WHO INCIDENT TO TRANSFER SOLD RESIDENCE LOCATED ON LOT OF 6 ACRES OF UNPRODUCTIVE LAND, 65 PERCENT COVERED BY SCRUB OAK MAY BE ALLOWED REAL ESTATE EXPENSES FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY ON BASIS THAT WHERE THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
TO MR. PAUL J. GRAINGER:
YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 27, 1969, REFERENCE 6540, REQUESTS A DECISION ON A RECLAIM VOUCHER FROM MR. JAMES R. PELLISSIER COVERING SUSPENSION OF A PART OF HIS CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION FROM ROSEBURG, OREGON, TO DENVER, COLORADO.
MR. PELLISSIER SOLD HIS RESIDENCE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON A LOT OF APPROXIMATELY 6 ACRES AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION IN ROSEBURG. YOU APPROVED ONLY THE RESIDENCE AND APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE FOR PURPOSES OF REIMBURSING MR. PELLISSIER THE EXPENSES OF SALE OF HIS PROPERTY. YOU BASED YOUR ACTION ON B-163187 OF FEBRUARY 19, 1968. IN THAT DECISION THE CLAIMANT LIVED IN A RESIDENCE ON A PRODUCTIVE FARM OF ABOUT 40 ACRES AND IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE PRO RATA COSTS INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE ALLOWABLE.
IN MR. PELLISSIER'S CASE IT IS STATED THAT THE LOT OF 6 ACRES IS UNPRODUCTIVE WITH APPROXIMATELY 65 PERCENT OF THE AREA COVERED WITH SCRUB OAK. WE HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SEE B-166709 OF MAY 21, 1969, COPY ENCLOSED.
THEREFORE, THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE PROPER, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRORATION REQUIREMENT IN B-163187.