B-176369, OCT 4, 1972
Highlights
CLOSING COSTS INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE INCIDENT TO THE PURCHASE OF A LOT ADJOINING THE RESIDENCE PURCHASED BY HIM ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER OMB CIRCULAR A-56. ROSENQUIST INITIALLY CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $918.55 OF WHICH $330.65 WAS DISALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. THE $190 NOW CLAIMED WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE REPRESENTS CLOSING EXPENSES RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF A LOT ADJOINING THE RESIDENCE PURCHASED BY MR. YOU STATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE EXPENSES OF THE ADJOINING LOT WAS TAKEN PURSUANT TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. EVIDENTLY THE REFERENCE IS TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 4.1F WHICH READS. "THE EMPLOYEE WILL ALSO BE LIMITED TO PRO RATA REIMBURSEMENT WHEN HE SELLS OR PURCHASES LAND IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH REASONABLY RELATES TO THE RESIDENCE SITE.".
B-176369, OCT 4, 1972
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - REAL ESTATE COSTS - RELATED PROPERTY DECISION ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ERIC ROSENQUIST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO HIS CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. CLOSING COSTS INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE INCIDENT TO THE PURCHASE OF A LOT ADJOINING THE RESIDENCE PURCHASED BY HIM ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER OMB CIRCULAR A-56, SECTION 4.1 ONLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE LOT REASONABLY RELATES TO THE RESIDENCE SITE.
TO MR. CARL FANUCCI:
WE REFER FURTHER TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 23, 1972, WHICH TRANSMITTED A VOUCHER FOR ADVANCE DECISION WHEREIN MR. ERIC ROSENQUIST CLAIMS REIMBURSEMENT OF $190 REPRESENTING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO HIS CHANGE OF OFFICIAL STATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DURING 1971.
YOU STATE THAT MR. ROSENQUIST INITIALLY CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $918.55 OF WHICH $330.65 WAS DISALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. THE $190 NOW CLAIMED WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE REPRESENTS CLOSING EXPENSES RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF A LOT ADJOINING THE RESIDENCE PURCHASED BY MR. ROSENQUIST. YOU STATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE EXPENSES OF THE ADJOINING LOT WAS TAKEN PURSUANT TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, SECTION 4.1, JUNE 26, 1969. EVIDENTLY THE REFERENCE IS TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 4.1F WHICH READS, "THE EMPLOYEE WILL ALSO BE LIMITED TO PRO RATA REIMBURSEMENT WHEN HE SELLS OR PURCHASES LAND IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH REASONABLY RELATES TO THE RESIDENCE SITE."
MR. ROSENQUIST URGES ALLOWANCE OF HIS CLAIM FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE PROPERTY WAS OFFERED AND ACCEPTED AS A SINGLE ENTITY. THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY CONSISTED OF TWO LOTS BECAME APPARENT ONLY AT TIME OF THE FHA APPRAISAL AND THE TIME NECESSARY FOR AN ADDITIONAL APPRAISAL WOULD HAVE DELAYED SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR MR. ROSENQUIST. CONSEQUENTLY, TWO SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE, ONE FOR THE HOUSE ON LOT 47 AND ONE FOR LOT 48, THE ADJOINING LOT.
ADDITIONALLY MR. ROSENQUIST POINTS OUT THAT THE RESIDENCE IS A RESTORED CARRIAGE HOUSE WHICH WHEN BUILT IN THE 1880'S NEEDED NO BACK YARD. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS DURING RESTORATION OF THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PURCHASED LOT 48 AS A REAR LOT FOR THE RESIDENCE. THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS TO THE STREET FROM THE LOT. THE TOTAL PROPERTY DIMENSIONS - LOTS 47 AND 48 - ARE 124 FEET BY 73 FEET, WHICH IS STATED TO BE AVERAGE FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. IT APPEARS THAT LOT 48 IS IN EFFECT ONLY A BACK YARD FOR THE RESIDENCE AND EVIDENTLY COULD NOT BE USED COMMERCIALLY.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE PROPERTY REASONABLY RELATES TO THE RESIDENCE SITE WITHIN THE APPLICABLE REGULATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.