B-181007, AUG 2, 1974

B-181007, AUG 2, 1974

1. WHERE IT IS IMPRACTICAL FOR A TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE MOVING A MOBILE HOME TO MOVE THE CEMENT BLOCKS AND HE PURCHASES NEW BLOCKS AT THE NEW LOCATION, THE COST OF THE NEW BLOCKS IS ALLOWABLE AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE SINCE IT IS AN EXPENSE RELATED TO UNBLOCKING AND BLOCKING UNDER SECTION 3.1B(2) OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56. SEE B-175285, APRIL 20, 1972. 2. WHERE A TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE MOVING A MOBILE HOME PURCHASES NEW SKIRTING RATHER THAN MOVE THE OLD SKIRTING, THE COST IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS THE COST OF NEWLY ACQUIRED ITEMS FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 3.1C(13) OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56. SEE B-176476, AUGUST 21, 1972.

ROGER W. MOORE - MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN MOVING MOBILE HOME:

AN AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER FOR THE NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HAS REQUESTED A DECISION IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 2, 1974, AS TO WHETHER THE COSTS OF NEW CEMENT BLOCKS AND NEW SKIRTING MATERIAL FOR A MOBILE HOME ARE REIMBURSABLE TO A TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEE AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATION IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSFER.

MR. ROGER W. MOORE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM MICHIGAN TO PENNSYLVANIA IN NOVEMBER OF 1972. HE CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $364.99 UNDER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) CIRCULAR NO. A-56, SECTION 3.1, FOR WHICH HE SUBMITTED RECEIPTS. THE AGENCY DISALLOWED ITEMS TOTALING $184.29 AND PAID THE EMPLOYEE THE $200 TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER SECTION 3.3A(2) ABSENT EVIDENCE OF ALLOWABLE EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF SUCH AMOUNT. THE EMPLOYEE HAS SUBMITTED A RECLAIM VOUCHER FOR THE DISALLOWED AMOUNT WHICH IS THE TOTAL OF TWO EXPENSE ITEMS INCURRED BY MR. MOORE INCIDENT TO THE RELOCATION OF HIS MOBILE HOME. THE EMPLOYEE STATES IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO TRANSPORT CEMENT BLOCKS USED TO BLOCK THE HOME OR THE OLD SKIRTING, THE MATERIAL USED TO COVER THE SPACE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE MOBILE HOME TO THE GROUND. HE RECLAIMS THE PURCHASE PRICE OF NEW CEMENT BLOCKS, $36.04, AND NEW SKIRTING MATERIAL, $148.25. A DECISION IS REQUESTED AS TO WHETHER THESE ITEMS MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

WE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF THE PURCHASE OF NEW CEMENT BLOCKS IN OUR DECISION B-175285, APRIL 20, 1972. WE HELD THAT IT WAS ALLOWABLE AS A MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE RELATED TO UNBLOCKING AND BLOCKING THE HOUSE TRAILER IN CONNECTION WITH ITS RELOCATION PROVIDED BY SECTION 3.1B(2) BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO TRANSPORT THE OLD BLOCKS. THEREFORE, THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF THE CEMENT BLOCKS.

IN THE CASE OF THE SKIRTING, THE EMPLOYEE CONTENDS THAT IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO TRANSPORT THE OLD SKIRTING BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE AND WEIGHT, THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT CAUSE DAMAGE IF IT WERE TRANSPORTED IN THE TRAILER, AND ITS UNSUITABILITY FOR USE AT THE NEW LOCATION DUE TO TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW SITES. HOWEVER, THE REGULATIONS DO NOT COVER THE COST OF NEW FURNISHINGS OR EQUIPMENT USED IN REMODELING OR MODIFYING LIVING QUARTERS. SEE SECTION 3.1C(13) OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56. THEREFORE, MR. MOORE MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED THE COSTS OF THE NEW SKIRTING MATERIAL. B-176476, AUGUST 21, 1972.

ACCORDINGLY, MR. MOORE'S RECLAIM VOUCHER MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TOTAL OF ITEMS FOR WHICH RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, INCLUDING THE CEMENT BLOCKS, EXCEEDS THE $200 PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED.