B-165367, OCT. 22, 1968

B-165367: Oct 22, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ROW: WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1. MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASE WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE 1 - YEAR TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. YOU STATE THE CLAIMANT FEELS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT EVEN THOUGH THE 1 - YEAR LIMITATION HAD EXPIRED BECAUSE HE WAS READY AND ABLE TO PURCHASE WITHIN THE YEAR BUT WAS PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO BY THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE SELLER TO RELINQUISH OCCUPANCY OF THE RESIDENCE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT ANY COURT ACTION WAS EVER TAKEN IN THE MATTER. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE ORDINARY DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "LITIGATION" AS BEING "ACTION BEFORE THE COURTS" WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN B-163955 AND B 164902.

B-165367, OCT. 22, 1968

TO MR. MAURICE F. ROW:

WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 1, 1968, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER A CLAIM BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT TRANSFER FROM TULLAHOMA, TENNESSEE, TO NEW YORK, NEW YORK, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASE WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE 1 - YEAR TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56.

YOU STATE THE CLAIMANT FEELS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT EVEN THOUGH THE 1 - YEAR LIMITATION HAD EXPIRED BECAUSE HE WAS READY AND ABLE TO PURCHASE WITHIN THE YEAR BUT WAS PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO BY THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE SELLER TO RELINQUISH OCCUPANCY OF THE RESIDENCE. THE CLAIMANT FURTHER STATES THAT HE HAD INSTRUCTED HIS ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE "LEGAL PROCEEDINGS" AND FOR THAT REASON THE EXCEPTION TO THE 1 - YEAR LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 PERTAINING TO "LITIGATION" APPLIES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT ANY COURT ACTION WAS EVER TAKEN IN THE MATTER.

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE ORDINARY DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "LITIGATION" AS BEING "ACTION BEFORE THE COURTS" WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN B-163955 AND B 164902, CITED IN YOUR LETTER, MAY BE BROADENED SO AS TO EMBRACE THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED. THEREFORE, WE MUST HOLD THAT THE "LITIGATION" EXCEPTION IS NOT APPLICABLE.

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