Skip to main content

B-127838, JUL. 29, 1963

B-127838 Jul 29, 1963
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY: WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JULY 8. WE POINTED OUT IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 11 THAT THE GREAT NORTHERN CASE IS LIMITED TO ITS OWN PARTICULAR FACTS. THAT SO FAR AS WE WERE AWARE. ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NO DUTY TO REOPEN AND REVIEW SETTLEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT COURT DECISIONS. YOU EXPLAIN THAT YOU DID NOT INTEND TO SUGGEST ACQUIESCENCE BY YOUR SILENCE BUT THAT YOU WERE AWAITING THE OUTCOME OF A COURT CASE. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A CLAIM BASED UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE. WE WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT THIS TIME ON ANY SUPPLEMENTAL BILL YOU PRESENT FOR THE AMOUNT CONSIDERED TO BE DUE. HAVE TO AGAIN DISALLOW A CLAIM SO PRESENTED.

View Decision

B-127838, JUL. 29, 1963

TO THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY:

WE HAVE YOUR LETTER OF JULY 8, 1963, FILE 2-77128 10/52, CONCERNING OUR DECISION B-127838, DATED JUNE 11, 1963.

IN THAT DECISION, WE CONSIDERED (1) YOUR NOTICE OF INTENT, BY LETTER DATED MARCH 1, 1962, TO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 29, 1956 (WHICH SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT IN CLAIM TK-603129, FEBRUARY 21, 1956, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR $5,649.53), SHOULD UNIDENTIFIED PENDING LITIGATION ON THE SAME ISSUE EVENTUALLY BE DECIDED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; AND (2) YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1963, ASKING REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 183-58, DECIDED MARCH 7, 1962. WE POINTED OUT IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 11 THAT THE GREAT NORTHERN CASE IS LIMITED TO ITS OWN PARTICULAR FACTS, WHICH DIFFER FROM THOSE AT ISSUE HERE; THAT SO FAR AS WE WERE AWARE, YOU HAD BY YOUR SILENCE FOR NEARLY 6 YEARS, ACQUIESCED IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 29, 1956, WHICH SUSTAINED A DEDUCTION MADE AUGUST 30, 1955, THUS SETTLING CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION PERFORMED IN 1952; AND THAT, BY A LONG-STANDING RULE, ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NO DUTY TO REOPEN AND REVIEW SETTLEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT COURT DECISIONS.

IN YOUR JULY 8 LETTER, YOU EXPLAIN THAT YOU DID NOT INTEND TO SUGGEST ACQUIESCENCE BY YOUR SILENCE BUT THAT YOU WERE AWAITING THE OUTCOME OF A COURT CASE; THAT YOU DID NOT REALIZE SUCH A DELAY MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THE PROSPECTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL REQUEST FOR REVIEW SUBSEQUENT TO SUCH A DECISION; AND THAT YOU THOUGHT IT ADVISABLE TO NOTIFY US ON MARCH 1, 1962, OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A SUBSEQUENT RENEWAL OF YOUR CLAIM BECAUSE OF THE THEN PENDING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN RAIL CARRIERS AND OUR OFFICE FOR CLOSING OUT ACCOUNTS ON TRAFFIC PRIOR TO AUGUST 26, 1958. YOU ALSO REFER TO A PENDING CASE, PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 85-59, AS THE ONE WHOSE OUTCOME SHOULD CONTROL IF WE AGREE "TO HOLD THE MATTER OPEN FOR ANY RECLAIM" WHICH YOU MAY SUBMIT.

BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATED IN YOUR EXPLANATION, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A CLAIM BASED UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE, CT.CL. NO. 85-59. HOWEVER, WE WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT THIS TIME ON ANY SUPPLEMENTAL BILL YOU PRESENT FOR THE AMOUNT CONSIDERED TO BE DUE. SUCH BILL IF PRESENTED, SHOULD MAKE REFERENCE TO THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE AND TO THIS DECISION. IF WE TOOK DISPOSITIVE ACTION NOW WE WOULD, CONSISTENT WITH OUR EXISTING VIEW, HAVE TO AGAIN DISALLOW A CLAIM SO PRESENTED. BUT IN THE EVENT A FINAL JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE IS REACHED BY AUGUST 30, 1965, WE WILL, UPON YOUR FURTHER SPECIFIC REQUEST RECEIVED BEFORE THE INDICATED DATE RE EXAMINE THE ACCOUNT INVOLVED. THE CASE WILL PROBABLY BE ARGUED WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND THE COURT'S OPINION MAY BE EXPECTED SOME TIME IN 1964. THE POSSIBILITY OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS EXISTS, OF COURSE, AND THE 10-YEAR PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF THE DEDUCTION WILL EXPIRE AUGUST 30, 1965.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs