Skip to main content

B-160799, FEBRUARY 28, 1967, 46 COMP. GEN. 677

B-160799 Feb 28, 1967
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

THAT PROVIDED FOR THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE PURCHASER BY GENERAL WARRANTY DEED UPON COMPLETING PAYMENT IN 48 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF THE SECOND LIEN NOTE IS THE DATE THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED AND NOT THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEED LEGALLY TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY IS EXECUTED. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - RELOCATION EXPENSES - MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE AFTER TRANSFER TO A NEW DUTY STATION BEFORE HIS HOME AT THE OLD STATION HAD BEEN SOLD ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 21. ANDERSON'S VOUCHER IS WHETHER CERTAIN EXPENSES INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF HIS HOME AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION MAY BE REIMBURSED IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 4.1D OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO.

View Decision

B-160799, FEBRUARY 28, 1967, 46 COMP. GEN. 677

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - RELOCATION EXPENSES - "SETTLEMENT DATE" LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS THE "SETTLEMENT DATE" FOR THE SALE OF A HOME BY AN EMPLOYEE INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF DUTY STATION IN AUGUST 1966, UNDER A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO ON DECEMBER 16, 1966, THAT PROVIDED FOR THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE PURCHASER BY GENERAL WARRANTY DEED UPON COMPLETING PAYMENT IN 48 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF THE SECOND LIEN NOTE IS THE DATE THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED AND NOT THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEED LEGALLY TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY IS EXECUTED, THE PURCHASER HAVING SECURED EQUITABLE TITLE UNDER THE "CONTRACT FOR DEED," AND THE 1-YEAR SETTLEMENT DATE FOR SALE, PURCHASE, OR LEASE TERMINATION TRANSACTIONS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 4.1D OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966, HAVING BEEN SATISFIED, THE EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF JULY 21, 1966, MAY BE REIMBURSED THE COSTS INCURRED IN SELLING HIS HOME. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - RELOCATION EXPENSES - MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE AFTER TRANSFER TO A NEW DUTY STATION BEFORE HIS HOME AT THE OLD STATION HAD BEEN SOLD ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 21, 1966, THE PAYMENTS REPRESENTING AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE'S EQUITY IN THE PROPERTY AND NOT A SELLING EXPENSE, AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE BEING PRECLUDED BY SECTION 4.2D OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.

TO I. F. INGRAM, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FEBRUARY 28, 1967:

YOU LETTER OF JANUARY 16, 1967, REQUESTS OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY PROPERLY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT THE SUPPLEMENTAL TRAVEL VOUCHER DATED JANUARY 6, 1967, OF MR. NORMAN O. ANDERSON, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, TO REIMBURSE HIM FOR CERTAIN COSTS WHICH HE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER OF DUTY STATION FROM CORSICANA, TEXAS, TO CANTON, TEXAS, IN AUGUST 1966. THE VOUCHER COVERS REIMBURSEMENT AND ALLOWANCES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF JULY 21, 1966, PUBLIC LAW 89-516, 80 STAT. 323, 5 U.S.C. 5724A.

YOUR PRINCIPAL QUESTION WITH REGARD TO MR. ANDERSON'S VOUCHER IS WHETHER CERTAIN EXPENSES INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF HIS HOME AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION MAY BE REIMBURSED IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 4.1D OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED, OCTOBER 12, 1966, WHICH PROVIDES:

THE SETTLEMENT DATES FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OR LEASE TERMINATION TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS REQUESTED ARE NOT LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION, EXCEPT THAT AN APPROPRIATE EXTENSION OF TIME MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR HIS DESIGNEE WHEN SETTLEMENT IS NECESSARILY DELAYED BECAUSE OF LITIGATION.

ON DECEMBER 16, 1966, MR. ANDERSON SOLD HIS HOME IN CORSICANA BY CONTRACT IN WHICH HE HAS AGREED TO TRANSFER TITLE TO THE PURCHASER BY GENERAL WARRANTY DEED WHEN THE PURCHASER HAS COMPLETED PAYMENT OF THE SECOND LIEN NOTE WHICH, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, IS TO BE PAID IN 48 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS COMMENCING IN JANUARY 1967. YOU ASK WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT DATE INVOLVED IN THAT TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE QUOTED REGULATION MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEED LEGALLY TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY IS EXECUTED.

APPARENTLY THE PURCHASER BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACT OF DECEMBER 16 TOOK POSSESSION OF AND EQUITABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED IS KNOWN AS A "CONTRACT FOR DEED" AND THAT IN SUCH A TRANSACTION THE SALE IS CONSUMMATED AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS EXECUTED EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSFER OF LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IS DEFERRED UNTIL THE CONTRACT IS FULFILLED. WE NOTE IN THAT CONNECTION THAT THE REAL ESTATE AGENT'S COMMISSION WAS CHARGED TO MR. ANDERSON ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN EXECUTED.

WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE TERM "SETTLEMENT DATE" AS USED IN SECTION 4.1D OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 HAS A DEFINITE OR FIXED MEANING. IN THE TRANSACTION HERE INVOLVED IT APPEARS THAT SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. NO CONDITION OTHER THAN THE PAYMENT OF THE SECOND LIEN NOTE WAS IMPOSED UPON LEGAL TRANSFER OF TITLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SETTLEMENT DATE INVOLVED IN THIS TRANSACTION WAS THE DATE THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED. THEREFORE, YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT THE ITEMS ON MR. ANDERSON'S VOUCHER WHICH ARE OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE AS COSTS INCURRED IN SELLING HIS HOME. YOU INDICATE IN YOUR LETTER THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS HE MADE AFTER HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS NEW STATION BUT BEFORE THE HOME WAS SOLD ARE NOT PROPERLY REIMBURSABLE. THIS IS SO BECAUSE SUCH PAYMENTS REPRESENT (1) AN INCREASE IN HIS EQUITY IN THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AN EXPENSE INCIDENT TO SALE, AND (2) INTEREST, REIMBURSEMENT FOR WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDED BY SECTION 4.2D OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56.

MR. ANDERSON ALSO CLAIMS PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE FOR HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY INCIDENT TO THEIR TRAVEL FROM CORSICANA TO ATHENS, TEXAS, ON AUGUST 20, 1966, BETWEEN 2 P.M. AND 3 P.M. PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED APPEARS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 2.2B (1) AND (2) AND 2.3A (2) OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56. FURTHERMORE, PAYMENT OF HIS CLAIM FOR A $200 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ALLOWANCE WOULD APPEAR TO BE PROPER UNDER SECTION 3.2A (1) (B) OF THAT REGULATION.

THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs