B-168392, JUN. 12, 1970
Highlights
THE BASIC FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 16. A COPY OF WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR ENCLOSURES. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE SETTLEMENT WAS NOT MADE ON THE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE ENTERED INTO ON JULY 10. WHICH CONTRACT YOU WERE RELEASED FROM BY AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 16. SETTLEMENT WAS MADE ON A CONTRACT OF PURCHASE DATED JULY 14. WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE. THE FACT THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN TEMPORARILY DETAILED TO YOUR FORMER HEADQUARTERS FOR DUTY WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR CLAIM. THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT AN AGENCY MAY EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR PURCHASING A RESIDENCE ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYEE ENTERED INTO A PURCHASE CONTRACT WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD BUT BECAUSE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMIT.
B-168392, JUN. 12, 1970
TO MR. MEIR SOFAIR:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 12, 1970, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 16, 1969, B 168392, WHICH REQUIRED DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE AT YOUR NEW DUTY STATION INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER FROM PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, TO ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA.
THE BASIC FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 16, 1969, B-168392, A COPY OF WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR ENCLOSURES, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.
YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE SETTLEMENT WAS NOT MADE ON THE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE ENTERED INTO ON JULY 10, 1968, WHICH CONTRACT YOU WERE RELEASED FROM BY AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 16, 1968. SETTLEMENT WAS MADE ON A CONTRACT OF PURCHASE DATED JULY 14, 1969, WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE. THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY YOU INCIDENT TO THE PURCHASE OF YOUR RESIDENCE AT THE NEW DUTY STATION DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXTENSION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4.1E OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969.
YOU ASK RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT YOU RETURNED TO PHILADELPHIA ON A WORK DETAIL FROM APRIL 13, 1969, UNTIL JUNE 16, 1969. THE FACT THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN TEMPORARILY DETAILED TO YOUR FORMER HEADQUARTERS FOR DUTY WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR CLAIM.
SECTION 4.1E OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969, AUTHORIZES AGENCIES TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OTHER THAN LITIGATION. THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT AN AGENCY MAY EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR PURCHASING A RESIDENCE ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYEE ENTERED INTO A PURCHASE CONTRACT WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD BUT BECAUSE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES WAS UNABLE TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMIT.
IN YOUR CASE THE CONTRACT FOR THE RESIDENCE YOU PURCHASED WAS ENTERED INTO MORE THAN ONE-YEAR AFTER YOU ENTERED ON DUTY AT YOUR NEW DUTY STATION.
THEREFORE, WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 16, 1969, B-168392.