B-162320, SEP. 18, 1967

B-162320: Sep 18, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EXPENSES FOR MEALS DURING TIME FAMILY RESIDED IN PERMANENT QUARTERS AFTER MOVER HAD PACKED MOST OF EFFECTS MAY NOT BE PAID SINCE SUCH EXPENSES ARE ONLY PAYABLE WHILE EMPLOYEE IS OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS. LIKEWISE EXPENSE FOR CLEANING THREE RUGS IS NOT EXPENSE INHERENT IN RELOCATING RESIDENCE. THE TOTAL CLAIM OF $382.70 FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IS DERIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: (1) $42 FOR FOOD AND LODGING FOR HIS TWO CHILDREN WHO ACCOMPANIED HIM ON HIS HOUSE HUNTING TRIP IN SEPTEMBER 1966. WHILE HE WAS STILL LIVING IN PERMANENT QUARTERS IN NEW YORK AFTER THE MOVER HAD PACKED ALL HOUSEHOLD GOODS EXCEPT BEDS AND CLOTHING. YOU ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE VOUCHER: "/1) WHAT IS -OTHER ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED- IF PAID RECEIPTS ARE NOT SUBMITTED?

B-162320, SEP. 18, 1967

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF HUD CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING VOUCHER FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCIDENT TO TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE. EMPLOYEE WHO INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM NEW YORK TO WASHINGTON CLAIMS VARIOUS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE ITEMS MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL OF CHILDREN WITH EMPLOYEE ON HOUSE HUNTING TRIP. EXPENSES FOR MEALS DURING TIME FAMILY RESIDED IN PERMANENT QUARTERS AFTER MOVER HAD PACKED MOST OF EFFECTS MAY NOT BE PAID SINCE SUCH EXPENSES ARE ONLY PAYABLE WHILE EMPLOYEE IS OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS. LIKEWISE EXPENSE FOR CLEANING THREE RUGS IS NOT EXPENSE INHERENT IN RELOCATING RESIDENCE. WITH RESPECT TO EXPENSES FOR CUT0ING, BINDING AND INSTALLATION OF RUGS SUCH EXPENSES MAY NOT BE ALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF SEPARATE ITEMIZATION. "OTHER ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE" OF EXPENSES TO ENTITLE EMPLOYEE TO REIMBURSEMENT MIGHT BE CHECK SHOWING PAYMENT ON TRADESMAN'S ESTIMATE SUPPORTED BY EMPLOYEE'S STATEMENT. THE EMPLOYEE'S ITEMIZATION ALONE MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN PURCHASING MEALS BUT CLAIMS FOR SERVICES OF A RELATIVELY EXPENSIVE NATURE RENDERED BY TRADESMEN OR FIRMS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

TO MISS CELESTE A. DEROSA:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 1967, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT A RECLAIM VOUCHER FOR $182.70 SUBMITTED BY MR. JOSEPH MADONNA FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM NEW YORK, NEW YORK, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., IN OCTOBER 1966, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

YOU INDICATE THAT MR. MADONNA HAS BEEN ALLOWED $200 FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 3.2A (1) (B) OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, BUT CLAIMS AN ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE OF $182.70. THE TOTAL CLAIM OF $382.70 FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IS DERIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

(1) $42 FOR FOOD AND LODGING FOR HIS TWO CHILDREN WHO ACCOMPANIED HIM ON HIS HOUSE HUNTING TRIP IN SEPTEMBER 1966;

(2) $127 FOR FAMILY MEALS DURING PERIOD SEPTEMBER 27, 1966, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1966, WHILE HE WAS STILL LIVING IN PERMANENT QUARTERS IN NEW YORK AFTER THE MOVER HAD PACKED ALL HOUSEHOLD GOODS EXCEPT BEDS AND CLOTHING;

(3) $119 FOR CLEANING, CUTTING, BINDING, AND INSTALLATION OF THREE RUGS AT THE NEW RESIDENCE;

(4)$15 FOR CUTTING DOWN, FITTING AND INSTALLING A FOLDING KITCHEN DOOR FROM OLD RESIDENCE TO NEW, HANGING 150 POUND MIRROR (OLD RESIDENCE) TO NEW RESIDENCE, HANGING ANOTHER MIRROR (OLD RESIDENCE) IN NEW RESIDENCE AND INSTALLING HALLWAY CONSORT (OLD RESIDENCE) IN NEW QUARTERS;

(5) $10 FOR DISCONNECTING AND SERVICING OF WASHING MACHINE IN OLD RESIDENCE;

(6) $20 FOR CUTTING, SEWING AND INSTALLING LIVING ROOM DRAPERIES (OLD RESIDENCE) IN NEW QUARTERS; AND

(7) $49.70 FOR VARIOUS FEES AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH REGISTRATION OF HIS AUTOMOBILE IN MARYLAND, THE STATE OF HIS NEW RESIDENCE.

YOU ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE VOUCHER:

"/1) WHAT IS -OTHER ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED- IF PAID RECEIPTS ARE NOT SUBMITTED? WOULD A TRAVELER'S STATEMENT SUCH AS MR. MADONNA SUBMITTED BE ACCEPTABLE? OR WOULD OTHER EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT BE REQUIRED, SUCH AS CANCELED CHECKS?

"/2) WOULD THE TYPES OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY MR. MADONNA BE REIMBURSABLE UNDER THIS SECTION SINCE HE CLAIMS THESE ARE COSTS INHERENT IN RELOCATION OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE?

WITH RESPECT TO ITEM (1), SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF $42 FOR THE CHILDREN, THE EMPLOYEE RECOGNIZES SUCH EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOUSE HUNTING TRIP UNDER SUBSECTION 2 OF PUB. L. 89 516, APPROVED JULY 21, 1966, 80 STAT. 323, WHICH EXPRESSELY LIMITS SUCH ALLOWANCES TO THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS SPOUSE. TO THE SAME EFFECT SEE SUBSECTION 2.4A OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56. ALLOWABLE MISCELLANEOUS COSTS INCLUDE ONLY THOSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND REJECTED AS NOT BEING ALLOWABLE UNDER ONE OR MORE OF THE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF COST REIMBURSEMENT PROVIDED BY THE REGULATIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS ITEM WOULD NOT BE FOR ALLOWANCE.

ITEM (2), $127 FOR MEALS FOR THE FAMILY WHILE RESIDING IN PERMANENT QUARTERS AT THE OLD DUTY STATION FROM SEPTEMBER 27-30, 1966, AFTER THE MOVER HAD PACKED MOST OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE SINCE THE EMPLOYEE MUST BE OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS IN ORDER TO BECOME ENTITLED TO SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES UNDER SUBSECTION 2 OF PUB. L. 89-516. SEE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, SUBSECTIONS 2.5A, B AND D; B- 161959, AUGUST 10, 1967 (COPY ENCLOSED).

THAT PORTION OF ITEM (3) RELATING TO THE CLEANING OF THE THREE RUGS IN QUESTION IS NOT IN OUR OPINION AN EXPENSE INHERENT IN RELOCATING OF A PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE. SEE SUBSECTION 3.1B OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56. SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO SEPARATE ITEMIZATION OF THE ALLOWABLE CHARGES FOR CUTTING, BINDING, AND INSTALLATION, THIS ENTIRE ITEM MUST BE EXCLUDED.

HOWEVER, EVEN IF WE WERE TO ASSUME AN ARBITRARY MINIMUM FIGURE OF $30 FOR CLEANING THE THREE RUGS, THIS AMOUNT COUPLED WITH THE $127 AND $42 PREVIOUSLY DISALLOWED WOULD TOTAL $199 AND BRING THE ENTIRE ALLOWABLE CLAIM FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES BELOW $200, THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE PAID WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SUBSECTION 3.2A (1) OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION RELATING TO "OTHER ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES URRED," A CHECK SHOWING PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED OR EVEN A TRADESMAN'S ESTIMATE OF SUCH COST SUPPORTED BY THE EMPLOYEE'S STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT AN EXPENSE IN SUCH AN AMOUNT HAD BEEN INCURRED WOULD APPEAR TO BE SUFFICIENT. THE TRAVELER'S ITEMIZATION ALONE MIGHT BE SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE OF COSTS INCURRED IN PURCHASING MEALS BUT CLAIMS FOR SERVICES OF A RELATIVELY EXPENSIVE NATURE RENDERED BY A TRADESMAN OR A COMMERCIAL FIRM SHOULD ORDINARILY BE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY PROOF.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO FURTHER ANSWER TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION APPEARS TO BE NECESSARY.

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