B-162492, OCT. 6, 1967

B-162492: Oct 6, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TRANSFERRED FROM NASHVILLE TO MEMPHIS AND THEN FOUR MONTHS LATER WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO NASHVILLE BUT WHO DID NOT HAVE FAMILY OR EFFECTS TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW STATION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING RELOCATED HIS RESIDENCE FOR ENTITLEMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCIDENT TO RELOCATING RESIDENCE UNDER SECTION 3.1 OF BOB CIRCULAR A-56. CURTIS WAS AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM NASHVILLE TO MEMPHIS. NOR WERE HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW DUTY STATION. CURTIS WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO NASHVILLE. CURTIS IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR A-56. IS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.1 OF CIRCULAR A 56 AS FOLLOWS: "A.

B-162492, OCT. 6, 1967

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - MORE THAN ONE CHANGE OF STATION DECISION TO THE CERTIFYING OFFICER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING A VOUCHER FOR TWO COMMUTED ALLOWANCES FOR MISCELLANEOUS MOVING EXPENSES. EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TRANSFERRED FROM NASHVILLE TO MEMPHIS AND THEN FOUR MONTHS LATER WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO NASHVILLE BUT WHO DID NOT HAVE FAMILY OR EFFECTS TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW STATION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING RELOCATED HIS RESIDENCE FOR ENTITLEMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES INCIDENT TO RELOCATING RESIDENCE UNDER SECTION 3.1 OF BOB CIRCULAR A-56.

TO MR. B. R. JOHNSON:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1967, WITH ENCLOSURES, REFERENCE ADFF WRW, REQUESTS OUR DECISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT THE VOUCHER TRANSMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF MR. CHARLES R. CURTIS FOR $400, REPRESENTING TWO COMMUTED ALLOWANCES FOR MISCELLANEOUS MOVING EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO TWO CHANGES OF DUTY STATION.

BY TRAVEL ORDER DATED OCTOBER 14, 1966, MR. CURTIS WAS AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM NASHVILLE TO MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. THE EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY DID NOT ACCOMPANY HIM TO MEMPHIS, NOR WERE HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS TRANSPORTED TO THE NEW DUTY STATION. ON HIS TRAVEL VOUCHER DATED AUGUST 7, 1967, MR. CURTIS STATES THE FOLLOWING:

"FAMILY REMAINED AT OLD RESIDENCE AND I OCCUPIED TEMPORARY QUARTERS WHILE SELECTING PERMANENT QUARTERS.'

ON FEBRUARY 8, 1967, MR. CURTIS WAS TRANSFERRED BACK TO NASHVILLE. AS OF THAT DATE, MR. CURTIS HAD NOT SELECTED PERMANENT RESIDENCE QUARTERS AND HIS FAMILY HAD NOT JOINED HIM IN MEMPHIS.

YOU QUESTION WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE, MR. CURTIS IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.

THE PURPOSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE, AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 24 OF PUB.L. 89-516, IS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3.1 OF CIRCULAR A 56 AS FOLLOWS:

"A. THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING VARIOUS CONTINGENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCONTINUING RESIDENCE AT ONE LOCATION AND ESTABLISHING RESIDENCE AT A NEW LOCATION IN CONNECTION WITH AN AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

"B. THE ALLOWANCE IS RELATED TO EXPENSES THAT ARE COMMON TO LIVING QUARTERS FURNISHINGS AND HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND OTHER GENERAL TYPES OF COSTS INHERENT IN RELOCATION OF A PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THE TYPES OF COSTS INTENDED TO BE REIMBURSED UNDER THE ALLOWANCE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING:

"/1) DISCONNECTING AND CONNECTING APPLIANCES, EQUIPMENT AND UTILITIES INVOLVED IN RELOCATION, AND COST OF CONVERTING APPLIANCES FOR OPERATION ON AVAILABLE UTILITIES.

"/2) CUTTING AND FITTING RUGS, DRAPERIES AND CURTAINS MOVED FROM ONE RESIDENCE QUARTERS TO ANOTHER.

"/3) UTILITY FEES OR DEPOSITS THAT ARE NOT OFFSET BY EVENTUAL REFUNDS.

"/4) FORFEITURE LOSSES ON MEDICAL, DENTAL AND FOOD LOCKER CONTRACTS THAT ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.

"/5) AUTOMOBILE REGISTRATION, DRIVER'S LICENSE AND USE TAXES IMPOSED WHEN BRINGING AUTOMOBILES INTO SOME JURISDICTIONS.'

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE THAT THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS CONTEMPLATE A DISCONTINUANCE AND RELOCATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT RESIDENCE QUARTERS. ALSO, THERE ARE NO FACTS OF RECORD IN THIS CASE TO INDICATE THAT THE EMPLOYEE INCURRED ANY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATING PERMANENT RESIDENCE QUARTERS.

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