B-169151, JUN. 12, 1970

B-169151, JUN. 12, 1970

TO MR. FLOYD P. HOUGH:

YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 30, 1970, TRANSMITS A COPY OF LETTER DATED MARCH 20, 1970, AND OTHER ENCLOSURES FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED MARCH 16, 1970, B-169151, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED IN FAVOR OF MR. VINCENT N. MAURO, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, CLAIMING $136.50 AS THE COMMUTED RATE FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

MR. MAURO SUBMITTED HIS CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE HE PURCHASED IN SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER FROM PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, TO WASHINGTON, D. C; WAS INCREASED IN AN AMOUNT OF $250 IN CONSIDERATION OF PERMISSION BY THE SELLER TO USE THE BASEMENT OF THAT HOUSE FOR STORAGE PURPOSES FOR HIS FURNITURE PRIOR TO HIS OCCUPANCY.

THE SUBMISSION INCLUDED COPIES OF TWO SALES CONTRACTS, DATED AUGUST 23 AND 24, 1969, RESPECTIVELY. BOTH WERE SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND PURCHASER. HOWEVER, THE FORMER WAS MARKED "VOID." THE VOID CONTRACT SHOWED THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN NINETEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, ALSO SHOWN NUMERICALLY AS $19,500, WHICH NUMBER WAS CROSSED OUT AND THE NUMBER $20,500 SUPERIMPOSED. THE CONTRACT DATED AUGUST 24, 1969, SHOWED THE PURCHASE PRICE AS $19,750, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS THE FINAL AGREED PRICE. BOTH CONTRACTS CONTAINED NOTATIONS THAT THE PURCHASER WAS TO BE PERMITTED STORAGE OF FURNITURE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE.

IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 16, 1970, WE STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE WAS ACTUALLY INCREASED TO COVER THE COST OF THE STORAGE OF THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. WE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE THEN PRESENT RECORD, THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT. WE SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE EVENT THE EMPLOYEE SUPPLIED A STATEMENT FROM THE SELLER, OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION OF HIS EXPENDITURE FOR STORAGE, THE MATTER WOULD BE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

THE LETTER DATED MARCH 20, 1970, WHICH YOU NOW SUBMIT, WAS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY WHICH TRANSACTED THE SALE OF THE HOME. IT STATES THAT WHILE THE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THE ORIGINAL PRICE OFFERED AS INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO STORE MR. MAURO'S FURNITURE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE SELLER'S HOME, THE SELLER AGREED TO THE CONDITION ONLY WHEN THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS INCREASED BY $250 TO COVER THE COST OF STORING THAT FURNITURE.

AS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 16, 1970, THE DOCUMENTATION ORDINARILY REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION 6.4D(3), BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, DATED OCTOBER 12, 1966, TO SUPPORT CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TEMPORARY STORAGE EXPENSE UNDER THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM, CONSISTS OF THE ORIGINAL OR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RECEIPTED WAREHOUSE BILL. HOWEVER, IN INSTANCES WHERE THE GOODS ARE STORED AT SOME PLACE OTHER THAN A WAREHOUSE, WE HAVE NOT QUESTIONED REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH CHARGES WHERE NONCOMMERCIAL FACILITIES ARE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A REASONABLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE GOODS ARE STORED. SEE B- 141699, FEBRUARY 3, 1960; B 166277, MARCH 19, 1969.

THE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY MAY BE ACCEPTED AS ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE HOUSE WAS INCREASED BY $250 TO COVER THE COST OF STORAGE OF MR. MAURO'S HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS IN THE BASEMENT OF THE SELLER'S HOME PRIOR TO HIS TAKING POSSESSION OF THE HOME. THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 6.4D(2), BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, SINCE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED ($136.50), DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE OF STORAGE ALLOWANCES IN THE COMMUTED RATE SCHEDULE, IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE STORAGE, THE VOUCHER, RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOW BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.