A-90749, DECEMBER 16, 1937, 17 COMP. GEN. 516

A-90749: Dec 16, 1937

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS UNAUTHORIZED IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT REQUEST FOR REVIEW BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT. AS THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN A SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE TO REVIEW SETTLEMENTS OF HIS PREDECESSOR TO CORRECT ALLEGED ERRORS OF LAW. 1937: THERE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED YOUR FOUR LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 2. WHEREIN YOU HAVE REQUESTED REVIEW OF SETTLEMENTS. THE CLAIMS WERE FOR PROCESSING TAXES ON WHEAT USED IN BREAD DELIVERED UNDER THE CONTRACTS MENTIONED ABOVE AND WERE ALL DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE CONTRACTORS DID NOT PAY THE PROCESSING TAX TO THE UNITED STATES. THE BASES OF THE REQUESTS FOR REVIEW IN EACH CASE ARE THAT THE SETTLEMENTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS RENDERED ON JUNE 1.

A-90749, DECEMBER 16, 1937, 17 COMP. GEN. 516

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE - REVIEWS - SETTLEMENTS MORE THAN ONE YEAR OLD MADE BY PRIOR ACCOUNTING OFFICER - POWERS OF ATTORNEY OF CLAIMANTS' REPRESENTATIVES REVIEW OF A GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE CLAIM SETTLEMENT MAY NOT BE MADE UPON REQUEST OF ONE WHO HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE REQUISITE POWER OF ATTORNEY EVIDENCING HIS AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE CLAIMANT. REVIEW OF A GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE CLAIM SETTLEMENT, INVOLVING NO MISTAKE OF FACT, MADE MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FORMER COMPTROLLER GENERAL, IS UNAUTHORIZED IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT REQUEST FOR REVIEW BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT, AND AS THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN A SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE TO REVIEW SETTLEMENTS OF HIS PREDECESSOR TO CORRECT ALLEGED ERRORS OF LAW.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO ELLIS, HOUGHTON AND ELLIS, DECEMBER 16, 1937:

THERE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED YOUR FOUR LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1937, UNACCOMPANIED BY POWERS OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING YOU TO REPRESENT THE GENERAL BANKING CO. OR ITS SUBSIDIARY, THE WARNECKE BAKERY, BUT WHEREIN YOU HAVE REQUESTED REVIEW OF SETTLEMENTS, AS FOLLOWS:

CHART

DATE OF SETTLEMENT AMOUNT CONTRACT NUMBER AND DATE

SEPT. 28, 1934 --------------- $36.26 VA-99-H-190--- JUNE 15, 1933.

JAN. 2, 1935 ----------------- 152.07 VA-107-H-441--- JUNE 5, 1933.

MAY 4, 1935 ------------------ 74.98 VA-114-H-248--- JUNE 27,

1933.

OCT. 16, 1935 ---------------- 35.93 VA-26-R-196--- JUNE 20, 1933.

THE CLAIMS WERE FOR PROCESSING TAXES ON WHEAT USED IN BREAD DELIVERED UNDER THE CONTRACTS MENTIONED ABOVE AND WERE ALL DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE CONTRACTORS DID NOT PAY THE PROCESSING TAX TO THE UNITED STATES.

THE BASES OF THE REQUESTS FOR REVIEW IN EACH CASE ARE THAT THE SETTLEMENTS ARE CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS RENDERED ON JUNE 1, 1937, IN THE CASE OF BATAVIA MILLS, INC., V. THE UNITED STATES, NO. 43176. BY REASON OF RECOVERY OF PORTIONS OF THE TAX SINCE THE SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE, THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO $24.04, $63.74, $19.11, AND $9, RESPECTIVELY.

EVEN IF YOUR LETTERS OF NOVEMBER 2, 1937, HAD BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY THE REQUISITE POWERS OF ATTORNEY (AS TO WHICH, SEE 1 COMP. GEN. 776, 783), ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THESE SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE IN 1934 AND 1935 DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FORMER COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT REQUEST FOR REVIEW THEREOF WAS NOT FILED IN THIS OFFICE WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATES OF SUCH SETTLEMENTS. HENCE, THE SETTLEMENTS BECAME FINAL. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION 2 COMP. GEN. 5. IT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY HELD THAT A SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE MAY NOT REOPEN SETTLEMENTS TO CORRECT ALLEGED ERRORS OF LAW OF HIS PREDECESSOR. SEE UNITED STATES V. BANK OF METROPOLIS, 15 PETERS 401, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED IN 1 COMP. GEN. 548, 16 COMP. GEN. 51, AND ID. 118. THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO MISTAKE OF FACT HERE.

AS THE MATTER NOW STANDS, THIS OFFICE IS WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REOPEN AND REVISE THE ABOVE-REFERRED-TO SETTLEMENTS.