B-130403, FEB. 28, 1957

B-130403: Feb 28, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

RAISE A QUESTION CONCERNING THE AMOUNT PAID TO YOU BY SETTLEMENTS OF OUR OFFICE PURSUANT TO YOUR PETITIONS FOR REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF FORFEITURES ON ACCOUNT OF LIENS HELD BY YOUR COMPANY ON EACH OF THE ABOVE-NAMED VEHICLES WHICH WERE SEIZED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAW: BASICALLY YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER COSTS INCURRED IN THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF THESE VEHICLES SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM AMOUNTS FOUND TO BE DUE YOUR COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF LIENS HELD ON THE VEHICLES OR WHETHER SUCH COSTS SHOULD FIRST BE ABSORBED FROM THE EXCESS. OR OF THE APPRAISED VALUE IF THE VEHICLE IS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT WAS RECOGNIZED IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 2. THAT WHERE A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS ARE WITH HIM AT HIS NEW PERMANENT STATION AS A RESULT OF A LOCAL MOVE.

B-130403, FEB. 28, 1957

TO GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION:

YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1956, AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, RAISE A QUESTION CONCERNING THE AMOUNT PAID TO YOU BY SETTLEMENTS OF OUR OFFICE PURSUANT TO YOUR PETITIONS FOR REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF FORFEITURES ON ACCOUNT OF LIENS HELD BY YOUR COMPANY ON EACH OF THE ABOVE-NAMED VEHICLES WHICH WERE SEIZED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAW:

BASICALLY YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER COSTS INCURRED IN THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF THESE VEHICLES SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM AMOUNTS FOUND TO BE DUE YOUR COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF LIENS HELD ON THE VEHICLES OR WHETHER SUCH COSTS SHOULD FIRST BE ABSORBED FROM THE EXCESS, IF ANY, OF THE SELLING PRICE OF THE VEHICLE IF SOLD, OR OF THE APPRAISED VALUE IF THE VEHICLE IS TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT, OVER THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN.

THE RECORDS BEFORE OUR OFFICE SHOW THAT YOUR COMPANY FILED A PETITION FOR REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF THE FORFEITURES FOR EACH OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA, IT WAS RECOGNIZED IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 2, 1956, B-129246, THAT WHERE A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS ARE WITH HIM AT HIS NEW PERMANENT STATION AS A RESULT OF A LOCAL MOVE, HIS COMMANDING OFFICER COULD READILY DETERMINE FROM THE CONDITIONS OF HIS ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER FACTS IMMEDIATELY AT HAND, WHETHER THE CHANGE IN RESIDENCE WAS NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. SINCE THIS WOULD BE SO WHETHER THE CHANGE WAS FROM A STATION OVERSEAS OR FROM ONE LOCATED NEARBY IN THE SAME METROPOLITAN AREA, THE COMMANDING OFFICER MIGHT PROPERLY CERTIFY AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE CHANGE OF RESIDENCE IN EITHER CASE.

THE ONLY INFORMATION ON THIS POINT FURNISHED IN THIS CASE IS THE STATEMENT BY CAPTAIN MORRIS THAT THE MOVE TO THE NEW ADDRESS WAS THE "RESULT OF BEING REORDERED TO HQMC.' SUCH STATEMENT CONTAINS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE CHANGE OF STATION NECESSITATED A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AND SINCE THE CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED UNTIL MORE THAN THREE MONTHS AFTER HE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT HIS NEW STATION IT IS CONCLUDED THAT NO RIGHT TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF SUCH CHANGE.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PAY THE OFFICER'S CLAIM AND IT WILL BE RETAINED HERE.