B-163632, APR. 9, 1968
Highlights
WHO IS SINGLE. WAS TRANSFERRED FROM LANSING. YOU POINT OUT THERE IS NOTHING IN CIRCULAR NO. 1967) WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT IF IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT NO EXPENSES OF THE TYPE CLASSIFIED AS . MISCELLANEOUS" UNDER THE REGULATIONS ARE INCURRED THEN THE ALLOWANCE SPECIFIED FOR THAT PURPOSE IS NOT ALLOWABLE. WHEN THE ABOVE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED WE WERE AWARE THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED ANY REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYEES MUST INCUR SOME EXPENSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORY BEFORE BECOMING ENTITLED TO THE MINIMUM ALLOWANCE SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS. OUR VIEW IS THAT SUCH STATUTE AND REGULATIONS REASONABLY CONTEMPLATE AT LEAST SOME EXPENSE . WILL HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN ORDER FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE TO BE PAYABLE.
B-163632, APR. 9, 1968
TO MISS VIRGINIA G. LEIST:
YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1968, REFERENCE AD:F:F:V, REQUESTS OUR DECISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTIFYING FOR PAYMENT THE VOUCHER TRANSMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF MR. EDWARD T. MACKIN FOR $100 REPRESENTING ALLOWANCES FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.
YOU SAY THAT MR. MACKIN, WHO IS SINGLE, WAS TRANSFERRED FROM LANSING, MICHIGAN, TO DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND OUTSIDE OF SIX SUITCASES, HE MOVED NOTHING TO THE NEW DUTY STATION AND DID NOT INCUR ANY TYPE OF EXPENSES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3.1 OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56; ALSO, THAT SINCE MR. MACKIN HAS BEEN REIMBURSED FOR TRANSPORTATION TO HIS NEW POST OF DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 (A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, IT SEEMS MANDATORY THAT HE BE PAID UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 24 OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516. YOU POINT OUT THERE IS NOTHING IN CIRCULAR NO. A-56 REQUIRING A STATEMENT FROM EMPLOYEES TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY DID INCUR THE TYPE OF EXPENSES CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 3.1. IN VIEW THEREOF, YOU FIND IT DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE OUR DECISIONS (B-161304, MAY 4, 1967; B-161240, JUNE 20, 1967; AND B-162492, OCTOBER 6, 1967) WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT IF IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT NO EXPENSES OF THE TYPE CLASSIFIED AS ,MISCELLANEOUS" UNDER THE REGULATIONS ARE INCURRED THEN THE ALLOWANCE SPECIFIED FOR THAT PURPOSE IS NOT ALLOWABLE.
WHEN THE ABOVE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED WE WERE AWARE THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED ANY REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYEES MUST INCUR SOME EXPENSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORY BEFORE BECOMING ENTITLED TO THE MINIMUM ALLOWANCE SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, OUR VIEW IS THAT SUCH STATUTE AND REGULATIONS REASONABLY CONTEMPLATE AT LEAST SOME EXPENSE -- NO MATTER HOW SMALL -- WILL HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN ORDER FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALLOWANCE TO BE PAYABLE.
IN MOST CASES, PARTICULARILY WHERE THERE IS A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE INVOLVING MOVEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS OR WHEN THE TRANSFER IS FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED, SO AS TO WARRANT PAYMENT OF ALL THE ALLOWANCE WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY STATEMENT FROM THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED.
WE SEE NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR ALTERING THE CONCLUSION IN THE DECISIONS TO WHICH YOU REFER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATEMENT FROM MR. MACKIN INDICATING THAT HE INCURRED SOME EXPENSE WHICH FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF "MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES" AS DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS, THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.