B-176200, JUL 28, 1972
Highlights
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT EXPENSES WERE SHARED WITH THE SELLER. AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) WAS AUTHORIZED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM WEST PALM BEACH. SINCE REVIEW OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS DID NOT INDICATE WHICH OF THE "CLOSING COSTS" WERE PAID BY MR. HE WAS REIMBURSED ON A PRO RATA BASIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $265.46 REPRESENTING 70.6 PERCENT OF THE ALLOWABLE CLOSING COST. THE REMAINING $110.54 WAS TREATED AS PAID BY THE SELLER. MOOKAS IS CLAIMING THE $110.54 ON THE PREMISE THAT SINCE HE ACTUALLY PAID $450 TOWARD THE TOTAL CLOSING COSTS OF $637 THE ALLOWABLE COSTS OF $376 WERE INCLUDED IN HIS PAYMENT. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE CLOSING COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $376 MAY BE REIMBURSED MR.
B-176200, JUL 28, 1972
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - CHANGE OF STATIONS - RESIDENCE PURCHASE - SHARING OF CLOSING COSTS CONCERNING CLAIM OF MR. PANAGETE MOOKAS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR $110.54, REPRESENTING FEES PAID BY HIM IN PURCHASING A RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT EXPENSES WERE SHARED WITH THE SELLER, REIMBURSEMENT MAY BE MADE BASED ON THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY CLAIMANT, BUT NOT IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC. 4 OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56 SINCE THE CONTRACT OF SALE CALLED FOR PAYMENT OF A SPECIFIC AMOUNT, NOT A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL CLOSING COSTS.
TO MR. ROBERT J. SCHULLERY:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1972, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY THE ENCLOSED VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $110.54, REPRESENTING REAL ESTATE CLOSING COSTS INCIDENT TO THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE.
MR. PANAGETE MOOKAS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) WAS AUTHORIZED A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, TO SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, BY TRAVEL ORDER DATED MAY 22, 1970. INCIDENT TO SUCH CHANGE OF STATION, MR. MOOKAS PURCHASED A HOME IN PUERTO RICO. THE CLOSING COSTS AMOUNTED TO $637 OF WHICH $376 CONSISTED OF ALLOWABLE REIMBURSABLE ITEMS. MR. MOOKAS PAID $450 AND THE SELLER $187. SINCE REVIEW OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS DID NOT INDICATE WHICH OF THE "CLOSING COSTS" WERE PAID BY MR. MOOKAS, HE WAS REIMBURSED ON A PRO RATA BASIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $265.46 REPRESENTING 70.6 PERCENT OF THE ALLOWABLE CLOSING COST. THE REMAINING $110.54 WAS TREATED AS PAID BY THE SELLER. MR. MOOKAS IS CLAIMING THE $110.54 ON THE PREMISE THAT SINCE HE ACTUALLY PAID $450 TOWARD THE TOTAL CLOSING COSTS OF $637 THE ALLOWABLE COSTS OF $376 WERE INCLUDED IN HIS PAYMENT.
THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE CLOSING COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $376 MAY BE REIMBURSED MR. MOOKAS UNDER SECTION 4 OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56. SECTION 4.1F OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT IF ANY EXPENSES WERE SHARED BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYEE, REIMBURSEMENT IS LIMITED TO THE PORTION ACTUALLY PAID BY THE EMPLOYEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CONTRACT FOR SALE PROVIDES THAT MR. MOOKAS WILL PAY $450 OF THE CLOSING COSTS, NOT A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH COSTS. IN VIEW OF THIS THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE ALLOWABLE CLOSING COSTS BE PRORATED BETWEEN MR. MOOKAS AND THE SELLER. SINCE HE HAS PAID CLOSING COSTS IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE COSTS, HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF $376.
ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.