B-236793, Sep 29, 1989
Highlights
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence transaction expenses - Reimbursement - Eligibility DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. May be approved and paid. /1/ HUD denied the claim on the grounds that the residence is in San Luis Obispo. Is available only when the residence purchased is one from which the employee regularly commutes to work. The regulation provides authority for agencies to grant an exception to this commuting requirement where the official station is in a remote area where adequate family housing is not available. San Francisco is not such a remote area.
B-236793, Sep 29, 1989
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence transaction expenses - Reimbursement - Eligibility DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. To locate substantive decisions addressing this issue, refer to decisions indexed under the above listed index entry.
Robert M. Wood:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) asks whether Mr. Robert M. Wood's claim for reimbursement of real estate expenses he incurred through the purchase of a family residence in connection with his transfer to San Francisco, California, may be approved and paid. /1/ HUD denied the claim on the grounds that the residence is in San Luis Obispo, about 230 miles from San Francisco, and Mr. Wood commutes between there and his official station only on weekends.
Reimbursement for real estate purchase expenses under the Federal Travel Regulations, Paras. 2-6.1 and 2-1.4i (Supp. 4, Aug. 23, 1982), incorp. by ref., 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-7.003, is available only when the residence purchased is one from which the employee regularly commutes to work, generally on a daily basis. Jack B. Dugwyler, Jr., B-200749, Dec. 29, 1980. The regulation provides authority for agencies to grant an exception to this commuting requirement where the official station is in a remote area where adequate family housing is not available. Jacques P. Evans, B-196471, Jan. 6, 1980. Clearly, San Francisco is not such a remote area.
Mr. Wood contends that extenuating circumstances exist because of the high cost of housing in San Francisco. However, the regulations do not provide for an exception based on the cost of housing.
Accordingly, Mr. Wood's claim may not be allowed.
/1/ S. A. Evans, Director, Office of Finance and Accounting, HUD, Washington, D.C., requested our decision.