B-176452, FEB 21, 1973

B-176452: Feb 21, 1973

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET QUOTED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS DURING THE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516 ARE PERSUASIVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT BOTH THE OLD AND NEW DUTY STATIONS HAD TO BE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES AS A CONDITION TO THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE. 47 COMP. ARE CONSISTENT WITH THIS INTENT. THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF THIS CLAIM WAS PROPER. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING YOUR TRANSFER. PRECLUDE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE PURCHASE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE YOUR OLD OFFICIAL STATION WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO YOUR CLAIM INASMUCH AS IT DISCUSSED ONLY DOD REGULATIONS.

B-176452, FEB 21, 1973

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES - DUTY STATION OUTSIDE UNITED STATES DECISION RECONSIDERING A PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM BY DOUGLAS B. RUDDLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION IN HONOLULU, HAWAII, INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM LEGHORN, ITALY. THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET QUOTED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS DURING THE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516 ARE PERSUASIVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT BOTH THE OLD AND NEW DUTY STATIONS HAD TO BE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES AS A CONDITION TO THE ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE. 47 COMP. GEN. 93 (1967). SINCE PARAGRAPHS C 8050-1 AND C 8351-2, JTR, ARE CONSISTENT WITH THIS INTENT, THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF THIS CLAIM WAS PROPER.

TO MR. DOUGLAS B. RUDDLE:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 5, 1972, WHEREIN YOU APPEAL THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM Z-2447529 IN DENYING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY YOU IN THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE AT YOUR NEW OFFICIAL STATION IN HONOLULU, HAWAII, INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM LEGHORN, ITALY.

BY SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE OF APRIL 15, 1971, YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING YOUR TRANSFER, MORE SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH C 8050-1 AND PARAGRAPH C 8351-2 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, VOLUME II, PRECLUDE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE PURCHASE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE YOUR OLD OFFICIAL STATION WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

ON APPEAL, YOU STATE THAT THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE OF APRIL 15, 1971, WAS NONRESPONSIVE TO YOUR CLAIM INASMUCH AS IT DISCUSSED ONLY DOD REGULATIONS, WHICH YOU CONCEDE ARE AGAINST YOUR POSITON ON THE QUESTION OF REIMBURSEMENT OF YOUR EXPENSES, AND REQUEST THAT WE REVIEW YOUR CLAIM AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON MARCH 1, 1971, WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516 AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1971, YOU TOOK EXCEPTION TO OUR HOLDING IN B- 161815, 47 COMP. GEN. 93 (1967) AND URGE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC LAW 89-516 ON THE GROUND THAT "THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WAS TO REIMBURSE FOR EXPENSES OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF HOUSES SO LONG AS THOSE PURCHASES AND SALES WERE NOT IN FOREIGN AREAS."

WE POINT OUT THAT THE SAME OR SIMILAR QUESTIONS AS THOSE RAISED IN YOUR MARCH 1, 1971 LETTER WERE DISCUSSED IN OUR DECISION OF JULY 6, 1972, B- 161815, COPY ENCLOSED. IN THAT CASE WE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO

"*** INDICATION THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO PERMIT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WAS BEING TRANSFERRED TO OR FROM AN OFFICIAL STATION LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. ON THE CONTRARY, AS INDICATED IN 47 COMP. GEN. 93, WE BELIEVE THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET QUOTED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS ON THE LEGISLATION IS PERSUASIVE THAT THE CONGRESS UNDERSTOOD AND INTENDED THAT BOTH THE OLD AND NEW STATIONS HAD TO BE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES OR IN THE OTHER TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS REFERRED TO IN THE STATUTE AS A CONDITION TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES ON THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE."

IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION ON APRIL 15, 1971, AND THAT ACTION IS HEREBY SUSTAINED.