B-172000, APR 2, 1971

B-172000: Apr 2, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT'S RESIDENCE AT HIS OLD STATION WAS LOCATED ON A 58 ACRE LOT. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. REAGAN SOLD HIS RESIDENCE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON A LOT OF APPROXIMATELY 58 ACRES AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION AT GATLINBURG. IN THAT DECISION THE CLAIMANT LIVED IN A RESIDENCE ON A PRODUCTIVE FARM OF ABOUT 40 ACRES AND IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE PRO RATA COSTS INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE ALLOWABLE. THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AS ONE PARCEL TO A COUPLE. REAGAN'S CASE IT IS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT INCOME PRODUCING. WE HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH.

B-172000, APR 2, 1971

REAL ESTATE EXPENSES - PRORATION REQUIREMENT DECISION ALLOWING CLAIM BY JERRY A. REAGAN FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE SALE OF RESIDENCE PURSUANT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT'S RESIDENCE AT HIS OLD STATION WAS LOCATED ON A 58 ACRE LOT, OF WHICH 4 ACRES CONSISTED OF HOUSE, BARN, TOOL SHED, AND LAWN, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THE ENTIRE LOT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE VOUCHER, THEREFORE, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRORATION REQUIREMENTS IN B-163187, FEBRUARY 19, 1968.

TO MR. H. A. LEIBERT:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 18, 1971, REFERENCE 15-05, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTS A DECISION ON A RECLAIM VOUCHER FROM MR. JERRY A. REAGAN COVERING A PART OF HIS CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM GATLINBURG, TENNESSEE, TO ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA.

MR. REAGAN SOLD HIS RESIDENCE WHICH WAS LOCATED ON A LOT OF APPROXIMATELY 58 ACRES AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION AT GATLINBURG, OF WHICH 4 ACRES CONSISTED OF HOUSE, BARN, TOOL SHED, AND LAWN. YOU USED ONLY THE PRO-RATA VALUE OF THE RESIDENCE AND APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES FOR PURPOSES OF REIMBURSING MR. REAGAN THE EXPENSES OF SALE OF HIS PROPERTY. YOU BASED YOUR ACTION ON B- 163187 OF FEBRUARY 19, 1968. IN THAT DECISION THE CLAIMANT LIVED IN A RESIDENCE ON A PRODUCTIVE FARM OF ABOUT 40 ACRES AND IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE PRO RATA COSTS INVOLVED IN THE SALE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE ALLOWABLE.

MR. REAGAN SUBMITTED AN APPRAISAL FROM A REAL ESTATE BROKER, WHICH VALUES THE HOUSE AND THE 4 ACRES SURROUNDING IT AT $50,000 AND THE REMAINING LAND (54 ACRES) AT $38,000. THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AS ONE PARCEL TO A COUPLE. IN MR. REAGAN'S CASE IT IS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT INCOME PRODUCING. WE HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SEE B-166709 OF MAY 21, 1969.

THEREFORE, THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE PROPER, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRORATION REQUIREMENT IN B-163187.