A-81577, DECEMBER 8, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 562

A-81577: Dec 8, 1936

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

TRAVEL BETWEEN PLACE OF ABODE AND TEMPORARY PLACE OF DUTY - WHETHER A SUBSISTENCE OR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE WHETHER THE TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BETWEEN PLACE OF ABODE AND AIRPORTS AT WHICH ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY IS. AN EXPENSE INCIDENT TO SUBSISTENCE OR TRANSPORTATION IS FOR DETERMINATION UPON THE FACTS IN EACH CASE. 6.00 THE PURPOSE OF THESE VOUCHERS IS TO RECLAIM AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DEDUCTED FROM VOUCHERS NOS. 378045. - THE DEDUCTION OF SAID AMOUNTS HAVING BEEN MADE BECAUSE OF SUSPENSIONS MADE IN THE PREAUDIT BY THIS OFFICE ON THE GROUND THAT TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN PLACES OF LODGING AND PLACES OF DUTY IS CONSIDERED INCIDENT TO SUBSISTENCE AND NOT ALLOWABLE IN ADDITION TO PER DIEM.

A-81577, DECEMBER 8, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 562

TRAVEL BETWEEN PLACE OF ABODE AND TEMPORARY PLACE OF DUTY - WHETHER A SUBSISTENCE OR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE WHETHER THE TRAVEL OF EMPLOYEES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BETWEEN PLACE OF ABODE AND AIRPORTS AT WHICH ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TEMPORARY DUTY IS, BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE INVOLVED, AN EXPENSE INCIDENT TO SUBSISTENCE OR TRANSPORTATION IS FOR DETERMINATION UPON THE FACTS IN EACH CASE, BUT A REASONABLE APPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH 8 (B) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS TO SUCH CASES WOULD REQUIRE THAT SUCH TRAVEL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE WHERE REGULAR AIRPORT EMPLOYEES WHO LIVE IN THE NEAREST CITY USUALLY PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN PLACE OF DUTY AND PLACE OF ABODE.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, DECEMBER 8, 1936:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 7, 1936, REQUESTING, FOR FUTURE GUIDANCE IN SIMILAR CASES, REVIEW OF THE PREAUDIT ACTION OF THIS OFFICE IN REFUSING TO CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT CERTAIN AMOUNTS CLAIMED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMISSION AS EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION FROM THEIR TEMPORARY PLACE OF ABODE TO THEIR POINT OF DUTY AND RETURN.

THE CASES WHICH YOU SUBMIT FOR CONSIDERATION CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED VOUCHERS:

TABLE

BUREAU VOUCHER NO. NAME AMOUNT 3240 --------- ----------------- T. D. COWEN ------------------- $28.60 3241 -------- ------------------ WARNER L. HOWLETT ------------- 23.50 3546 ------- ------------------- JOHN H. RUDD ------------------ 6.00

THE PURPOSE OF THESE VOUCHERS IS TO RECLAIM AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DEDUCTED FROM VOUCHERS NOS. 378045, 335317, 378051, SEPTEMBER, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER, 1936, ACCOUNTS, RESPECTIVELY, OF G. F. ALLEN, SYMBOL NO. 115- 100--- THE DEDUCTION OF SAID AMOUNTS HAVING BEEN MADE BECAUSE OF SUSPENSIONS MADE IN THE PREAUDIT BY THIS OFFICE ON THE GROUND THAT TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN PLACES OF LODGING AND PLACES OF DUTY IS CONSIDERED INCIDENT TO SUBSISTENCE AND NOT ALLOWABLE IN ADDITION TO PER DIEM, CITING T.R. PAR. 44 AND 11 COMP. GEN. 126.

THESE RECLAIM VOUCHERS WERE SUBMITTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE PREAUDIT, CITING T.R. PAR. 8 (B) AS AUTHORITY FOR THE CLAIMED EXPENSES, BUT CERTIFICATION THEREOF WAS WITHHELD ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID RECLAIM VOUCHERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE TRAVEL WAS NOT SUCH AS MADE BY THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CITED REGULATIONS.

THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION WAS BY EMPLOYEES OF YOUR COMMISSION BETWEEN CERTAIN AIRPORTS AND THE PLACES OF ABODE, SAID TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN THE CASE OF TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS RELATIVE TO CERTAIN DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE COMMISSION BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF 6 (B) AND 6 (E) OF THE AIR MAIL ACT OF JUNE 12, 1934, 48 STAT. 933, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1935, 49 STAT. 614, REQUIRING THE EXAMINATION OF BOOKS, ACCOUNTS, CONTRACTS, ETC., OF THE HOLDERS OF AIR-MAIL CONTRACTS WITH THE VIEW OF DETERMINING THAT NO UNREASONABLE PROFIT IS DERIVED BY THE CONTRACTORS AND OF FIXING JUST RATES.

PARAGRAPH 8 (B) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES:

WHERE THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF THE WORK WHERE TEMPORARILY STATIONED ARE SUCH THAT MEALS AND LODGING CANNOT BE PROCURED THERE, AND THE DAILY TRAVEL REQUIRED TO PROCURE SUBSISTENCE AT THE NEAREST AVAILABLE PLACE IS NOT SUCH AS MADE BY THE PUBLIC GENERALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE, NOR PERFORMED FOR THE PERSONAL CONVENIENCE OF THE TRAVELER, THE EXPENSE THEREOF WILL BE CONSIDERED AS NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION NOT INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE. FULL STATEMENT OF THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DAILY TRAVEL SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE EXPENSE ACCOUNT.

THE ABOVE REGULATION FOLLOWS PRECISELY THE RULE LAID DOWN IN DECISION OF NOVEMBER 2, 1923, REPORTED IN 3 COMP. GEN. 284, THE SYLLABUS OF WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:

WHERE THE EXPENSE INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE WHILE AWAY FROM HIS PERMANENT STATION, IN GOING TO AND FROM HIS WORK, IS MERELY THAT REQUIRED DAILY OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE PLACE WHERE HE IS TEMPORARILY STATIONED, SUCH TRAVEL IS INCIDENT TO SUBSISTENCE AND IS INCLUDED IN THE ALLOWANCE THEREFOR, BUT WHERE THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF HIS WORK IS SUCH THAT MEALS AND LODGING CANNOT BE SECURED THERE, THE DAILY TRAVEL BETWEEN THE NEAREST PLACE AT WHICH LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS CAN BE SECURED AND THE WORK IS NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION NOT INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE.

ATTACHED TO YOUR LETTER IS A STATEMENT OF THE DISTANCES OF PRINCIPAL AIRPORTS FROM CITIES SERVED, THE DISTANCE SHOWN RANGING FROM 1 TO 26 MILES. IN A MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 22, 1936, BY THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF AIR MAIL, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION, THE FOLLOWING WAS STATED WITH RESPECT TO THE TRAVEL BETWEEN THE AIRPORTS AND THE CITIES SERVED:

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE SITUATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC PROCEEDING TO AND FROM AIRPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR TRAVEL BY AIR AND THAT OF EMPLOYEES OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS IN PROCEEDING TO AND FROM THEIR WORK IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE REQUIRED TO BE STATIONED AND PERFORM SERVICE FOR CONSIDERABLE PERIODS OF TIME AT THESE AIR TERMINALS AND AIRPORTS. IN THE CASE OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE IN MANY CASES WHEREBY THE AIRLINE OPERATORS, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LINE-HAUL REVENUE, SUBSIDIZE BUS LINES OR TAXI SERVICE BY DEFRAYING PART OR THE WHOLE OF THE CHARGE, AND THIS SERVICE NATURALLY IS NOT AVAILABLE TO OTHERS THAN THE PATRONS OF THE AIRLINES. IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS, THEIR TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THEIR PLACES OF LODGING IS USUALLY FURNISHED BY PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF THEIR EMPLOYERS. THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMISSION DO NOT HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF EITHER OF THESE FACILITIES, AND IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW THE DAILY TRAVEL EXPENSE TO AND FROM THE AIRPORTS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS BEING INCURRED BY THE PREFERENCE OR CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEE IN THE MATTER OF A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE OR TO PROCURE HIS MEALS. HE HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO INCUR THE EXPENSE WHICH, IF DISALLOWED, OPERATES TO REDUCE HIS SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE, AS COMPARED WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMISSION WHO ARE MORE OR LESS FREE TO ELECT WHERE THEY SHALL LIVE AND EAT IN RELATION TO THEIR PLACES OF DUTY. DUE TO THE REMOTENESS OF THE LOCATION OF THESE AIRPORTS AND AIR TERMINALS FROM HABITABLE AREAS, THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN THE FIELD WORK OF THIS BUREAU IS IN NO WAY COMPARABLE TO THAT OF AN EMPLOYEE IN TRAVELING FROM HIS HOTEL OR PLACE OF LODGING TO HIS INITIAL POINT OF DUTY IN A CITY OR TOWN.

WHILE IT IS STATED IN THE PORTION OF THE MEMORANDUM ABOVE QUOTED THAT EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS ARE USUALLY FURNISHED WITH TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THEIR PLACES OF LODGING BY PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF THEIR EMPLOYERS, IT IS APPARENT FROM SUCH STATEMENT THAT TRANSPORTATION IS NOT FURNISHED IN ALL CASES. UNDER PARAGRAPH 8 (B) OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS, SUPRA, IT IS REQUIRED THAT A FULL STATEMENT OF THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DAILY TRAVEL SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE EXPENSE ACCOUNT IN EACH INSTANCE. FROM THAT REQUIREMENT IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT NO GENERAL RULE CAN BE ESTABLISHED FOR APPLICATION TO ALL TRAVEL BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND PLACES AT WHICH LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS CAN BE SECURED. EACH CASE MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE PARTICULAR FACTS THEREIN INVOLVED. A REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS, SUPRA, TO THE CLASS OF CASES HERE INVOLVED, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEES BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL TO SUBSISTENCE WHERE THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE OPERATORS WHO LIVE IN THE NEAREST CITY USUALLY PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THEIR PLACE OF DUTY AND PLACE OF ABODE; OTHERWISE, AS INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION, AND, THEREFORE, REIMBURSABLE AS SUCH. HENCE, IN ALL CLAIMS OF THIS CHARACTER, WHEN TRAVEL EXPENSE IS CLAIMED AS INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SUBSISTENCE, THE VOUCHER MUST CONTAIN A FULL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS INVOLVED SO AS TO SHOW BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENSES ARE WITHIN PARAGRAPH 8 (B) OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND THE RULE STATED IN 3 COMP. GEN. 284, SUPRA. COMPARE A-56885, DATED AUGUST 25, 1934.

THE VOUCHERS FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER WILL BE TREATED AS CLAIMS FOR DIRECT SETTLEMENT BY THIS OFFICE, AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING ISSUED TODAY FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE SAID CLAIMS UPON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FURNISHED, IF THE VOUCHERS IN QUESTION ARE OTHERWISE FOUND CORRECT.