B-181983, JAN 3, 1975, 54 COMP GEN 553

B-181983, JAN 3, 1975, 54 COMP GEN 553

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - RELOCATION EXPENSES - "SETTLEMENT DATE" LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS - EXTENSION EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TRANSFERRED FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AND HAD DECIDED NOT TO SELL HOME IN FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, SINCE HE HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT HE WOULD BE ROTATED BACK TO WASHINGTON WITHIN 2 YEARS, BUT WAS GIVEN SUBSEQUENTLY PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, MAY BE GRANTED EXTENSION TO 1-YEAR TIME LIMITATION RELATING TO COMPLETION OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, EVEN THOUGH HIS REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER EXPIRATION OF INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD BUT BEFORE EXPIRATION OF 2-YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED BY SECTION 2-6.1E OF THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

IN THE MATTER OF AN EXTENSION OF 1-YEAR TIME LIMITATION TO COMPLETE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, JANUARY 3, 1975:

BY LETTER OF JULY 29, 1974, THE AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER FOR THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHA), REGION 9, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, REQUESTED AN ADVANCE DECISION REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN EXTENSION OF THE 1-YEAR TIME LIMITATION RELATING TO THE COMPLETION OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS MAY BE APPROVED. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE REQUEST CONCERNS THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO APPROVE AN EMPLOYEE'S WRITTEN REQUEST AFTER THE INITIAL YEAR PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, BUT WITHIN THE OVERALL 2-YEAR LIMITATION PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION 2-6.1E OF THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS (FPMR 101-7).

IN SEPTEMBER 1972, THE EMPLOYEE IN QUESTION, MR. JAMES R. LINK, WAS TRANSFERRED FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO THE REGION 9 OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WITH THE VERBAL UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD BE ROTATED BACK TO WASHINGTON, D.C., IN APPROXIMATELY 2 YEARS. BASED UPON THIS UNDERSTANDING, MR. LINK MAINTAINED HIS HOME IN FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, WITH THE INTENTION OF MOVING BACK TO THE FAIRFAX HOME AT THE END OF HIS SAN FRANCISCO ASSIGNMENT. HOWEVER, ON JULY 12, 1974, HE ACCEPTED A NEW CAREER ASSIGNMENT IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. THIS ALTERED HIS EARLIER PLANS TO RETURN TO WASHINGTON AND LED TO HIS DECISION TO SELL HIS FAIRFAX HOME.

IN REGARD TO THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUEST FOR A 1-YEAR EXTENSION, FTR 2 6.1E STATES:

TIME LIMITATION. THE SETTLEMENT DATES FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OR LEASE TERMINATION TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS REQUESTED ARE NOT LATER THAN 1 (INITIAL) YEAR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION. UPON AN EMPLOYEE'S WRITTEN REQUEST THIS TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE SALE AND PURCHASE OR LEASE TERMINATION TRANSACTION MAY BE EXTENDED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME, NOT TO EXCEED 1 YEAR, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS THEREFOR SO LONG AS IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE PARTICULAR RESIDENCE TRANSACTION IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION.

WHILE NO MENTZON IS MADE OF WHEN, WITHIN THE 2-YEAR PERIOD, THE EMPLOYEE MUST MAKE HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION, WE BELIEVE THAT RESTRICTING THE PERIOD DURING WHICH AN EMPLOYEE MAY MAKE SUCH A REQUEST TO THE INITIAL 1- YEAR PERIOD WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE ABOVE REGULATION. THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA), THE AGENCY GIVEN AUTHORITY UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11609, JULY 22, 1971, TO ISSUE REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE RELOCATION BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, COMMENTING ON THE BACKGROUND OF THIS REGULATION, STATED:

BACKGROUND. THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS IN OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56 ORIGINALLY PERMITTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE TIME LIMITATION OF 1 YEAR FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE ONLY WHEN SETTLEMENT WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF LITIGATION. IN 1969 THE REGULATIONS WERE AMENDED TO PERMIT AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REASONS OTHER THAN LITIGATION WHEN A VALID CONTRACT OF SALE/PURCHASE HAD BEEN EXECUTED WITHIN THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD FROM THE TIME AN EMPLOYEE REPORTED TO HIS NEW DUTY STATION. EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH EMPLOYEES, ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, DO NOT POSSESS VALID CONTRACTS OF SALE/PURCHASE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. THEREFORE, THE REGULATIONS ARE BEING AMENDED TO AUTHORIZED HEADS OF AGENCIES OR THEIR DESIGNEES TO GRANT EXTENSIONS OF THE 1-YEAR PERIOD WHEN THEY ARE JUSTIFIED. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 37, NO. 209 SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1972.

IT IS PRESUMED THAT GSA MEANT THE BENEFITS OF THIS REGULATION (FPMR 2 6.1E) TO BE EXTENDED NOT ONLY TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLETE A SALE OR PURCHASE, COMMENCED DURING THE INITIAL 1 YEAR PERIOD, BUT ALSO TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXECUTE A VALID CONTRACT OF SALE OR PURCHASE DURING THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD. WE BELIEVE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE SITUATION IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE CANNOT EXECUTE A CONTRACT OF SALE OR PURCHASE UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE INITIAL 1- YEAR PERIOD. IN ANY CASE, THE AMENDED REGULATIONS PERMIT AN EXTENSION TO BE GRANTED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE AGENCY FOR ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON AS LONG AS THE TRANSACTION IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER.

ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE FHA'S APPROVAL OF MR. LINK'S REQUEST FOR A 1-YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE SALE OF HIS RESIDENCE NOT TO EXCEED 2 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF HIS TRANSFER TO SAN FRANCISCO, PROVIDED THE REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE IN WRITING WITHIN THE TIME LIMITATION AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION.