B-157461, AUG. 25, 1965

B-157461: Aug 25, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PEACE CORPS: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10. YOU STATE THAT THE $2.50 BUS FARE AND THE 70 CENT TAXICAB FARE WERE ALLOWED. DAVIS' RESIDENCE WAS DISALLOWED BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3.1B OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT $5.50. WILL BE ALLOWED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6 (PLUS TIP) * * * " UNDER THE ABOVE REGULATION TAXICAB FARES ARE REIMBURSABLE FROM THE TERMINAL POINT TO EITHER THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OR THE PLACE OF ABODE. DAVIS' TRAVEL WAS THE AIRLINE TERMINAL IN WASHINGTON. GEN. 416 UNDER WHICH TAXICAB FARE BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND OFFICE WAS ALLOWED IS DISTINGUISHED SINCE IN THAT CASE THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY BEGAN AT THE OFFICE WHICH WAS HELD TO CONSTITUTE AN "OTHER TERMINAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3.1B.

B-157461, AUG. 25, 1965

TO MR. GEORGE BLOOM, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, PEACE CORPS:

THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 10, 1965, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT THE RECLAIM VOUCHER OF WALTER K. DAVIS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PEACE CORPS, FOR $5.50 FOR TAXICAB FARE FROM THE PEACE CORPS OFFICE, 806 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., TO RESIDENCE IN FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA.

IT APPEARS FROM YOUR LETTER AND THE ENCLOSURES THERETO THAT MR. DAVIS DEPARTED FROM DULLES AIRPORT AT 4:45 P.M. ON APRIL 17, 1965, AND RETURNED FROM TEMPORARY DUTY AT NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, ON SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1965, A NONWORKDAY, ARRIVING AT FRIENDSHIP AIRPORT, BALTIMORE, AT 12:30 P.M. HE TOOK AN AIRLINE BUS FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE AIRLINE TERMINAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AT A COST OF $2.50. IN ORDER TO AVOID TRANSPORTING BULKY OFFICIAL MATERIAL MR. DAVIS TOOK A TAXICAB FROM THE AIRLINE TERMINAL TO HIS OFFICE AT A COST OF 70 CENTS TO DROP OFF THE MATERIAL. HE THEN TOOK A TAXICAB FROM THE OFFICE TO RESIDENCE AT A COST OF $5.50.

YOU STATE THAT THE $2.50 BUS FARE AND THE 70 CENT TAXICAB FARE WERE ALLOWED, BUT THAT THE $5.50 TAXICAB FARE TO MR. DAVIS' RESIDENCE WAS DISALLOWED BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3.1B OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. YOU ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE TAXICAB FARE TO MR. DAVIS' HOME IN FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA, FROM THE AIRLINE TERMINAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT $5.50.

THE REGULATION IN QUESTION PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

"REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE USUAL TAXICAB FARES FROM COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER TERMINAL TO EITHER PLACE OF ABODE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR FROM EITHER PLACE OF ABODE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS TO COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER TERMINAL, WILL BE ALLOWED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6 (PLUS TIP) * * * "

UNDER THE ABOVE REGULATION TAXICAB FARES ARE REIMBURSABLE FROM THE TERMINAL POINT TO EITHER THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OR THE PLACE OF ABODE, BUT NOT TO BOTH PLACES. WHERE THE EMPLOYEE ELECTS TO BE TRANSPORTED TO HIS OFFICE THAT TERMINATES THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ABOVE REGULATION TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT OF TAXICAB FARES TO HIS PLACE OF ABODE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT PARTICULAR TRAVEL.

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TERMINAL POINT OF MR. DAVIS' TRAVEL WAS THE AIRLINE TERMINAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C. SEE 31 COMP. GEN. 442. HIS TRAVEL ON A COMMON CARRIER OR BY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION DID NOT COMMENCE FROM HIS OFFICE, NOR DID HIS TRAVEL STATUS INITIATE AT HIS OFFICE. HIS DEPARTURE TOOK PLACE FROM DULLES AIRPORT, AND HIS RETURN TRAVEL TERMINATED AT THE AIRLINE TERMINAL, WASHINGTON, D.C. THUS, HIS OFFICE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS AN "OTHER TERMINAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3.1B OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS SO AS TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THAT POINT TO HIS RESIDENCE. THE HOLDING IN 36 COMP. GEN. 416 UNDER WHICH TAXICAB FARE BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND OFFICE WAS ALLOWED IS DISTINGUISHED SINCE IN THAT CASE THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY BEGAN AT THE OFFICE WHICH WAS HELD TO CONSTITUTE AN "OTHER TERMINAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3.1B.

ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPEARING, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE EMPLOYEE INVOLVED MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE TAXICAB FARE BETWEEN HIS OFFICE AND HIS RESIDENCE.

THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.