B-161640, AUG. 2, 1967

B-161640, AUG. 2, 1967

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - HOME SALE/PURCHASE EXPENSES DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION RE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT UNDER PUBLIC LAW 89-516. EMPLOYEE WHO INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM RED BLUFF, CALIF., TO SACRAMENTO, CALIF. CLAIMS EXPENSES FOR PURCHASE OF HOME NEED NOT BE DENIED REIMBURSEMENT ON BASIS THAT HE OCCUPIED RENTED QUARTERS AT OLD STATION RATHER THAN PERSONALLY OWNED HOME AND RENTED QUARTERS ARE PLENTIFULLY AVAILABLE IN SACRAMENTO. WITH RESPECT TO TITLE INSURANCE IF IT IS A COST CUSTOMARILY PAID BY PURCHASER REIMBURSEMENT MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

TO MR. A. E. DAZELL, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 23, 1967, REFERENCE 2-363, ENCLOSING A VOUCHER FOR $95.70 IN FAVOR OF MR. ABNER L. BARDAL, A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, REPRESENTING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CLAIMANT IN THE PURCHASE OF A DWELLING INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER OF STATION.

YOUR LETTER SUGGESTS THAT BECAUSE MR. BARDAL OCCUPIED RENTED QUARTERS AT HIS FORMER STATION IN RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA, AND BECAUSE SUCH CLASS OF QUARTERS ARE PLENTIFULLY AVAILABLE IN SACRAMENTO, MR. BARDAL MAY NOT BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PURCHASE OF A DWELLING HOUSE IN SACRAMENTO.

A REVIEW OF PUB. L. 89-516, APPROVED JULY 21, 1966, 80 STAT. 323, AND OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966, LEADS US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE SUCH A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION.

THEREFORE, THE ITEMS OF REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMED, IF OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE, NEED NOT BE DISALLOWED SOLELY BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT OCCUPY A PERSONALLY OWNED DWELLING HOUSE AT HIS FORMER STATION.

REGARDING THE ITEMS CLAIMED, ONLY THAT SHOWN ON THE VOUCHER AS "TITLE INS. PREMIUM $46.70" WOULD APPEAR TO BE QUESTIONABLE UNDER SECTION 4.2D OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56. IF THE ITEM IS A MORTGAGE TITLE POLICY IT WOULD BE REIMBURSABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT IS AN OWNER'S TITLE POLICY IT WOULD NOT BE REIMBURSABLE.

WE NOTE THAT THE ITEMS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS CLAIMED ARE STATED BY THE CLAIMANT TO BE ITEMS WHICH NORMALLY ARE PAID BY THE SELLER IN THE SACRAMENTO AREA. SECTION 4.2 OF THE CIRCULAR IN REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF DWELLINGS GENERALLY CONTEMPLATES REIMBURSEMENT OF ITEMS OF EXPENSE TO THE PURCHASER WHICH CUSTOMARILY ARE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER AT THE NEW STATION. IF THE CLAIMANT CANNOT EXPLAIN HIS STATEMENT WE SUGGEST THAT THE LOCAL OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION BE ASKED WHETHER THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION NORMALLY ARE BORNE BY THE SELLER OR THE PURCHASER.

THE VOUCHER TRANSMITTED BY YOUR LETTER IS RETURNED HEREWITH. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF TITLE INSURANCE IS THAT AUTHORIZED TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE CIRCULAR AND THAT ALL OF THE ITEMS CLAIMED CUSTOMARILY ARE THOSE PAID BY A PURCHASER, THE VOUCHER MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.