B-162466, SEP. 27, 1967
Highlights
EMPLOYEE WHO WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY HAD TO EMPLOY SOMEONE TO TAKE CARE OF HIS CHILDREN AT NIGHT BECAUSE HIS WIFE WORKED AT NIGHT MAY NOT HAVE SUCH ADDITIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY FAMILY AT DOMICILE REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL TO TRANSACTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS TO COME WITHIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE PROVISION IN SEC. 1.4. REQUESTS OUR DECISION WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF $30 WHICH IS PART OF THE SUM OF $34 STATED ON THE ENCLOSED VOUCHER BY MR. MALANOSKI IS ALLOWABLE UNDER HIS TRAVEL ORDER NO. 154-67 DATED JANUARY 5. THAT AMOUNT OF $30 IS THE SUM OF THE SIX $5 ITEMS DESCRIBED ON THE VOUCHER BY MR. OFFICIAL EXPENSE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED IF I HAD NOT BEEN IN A TRAVEL STATUS.'. YOU SAY THE $30 WAS DISALLOWED ON HIS ORIGINAL VOUCHER WHICH READ.
B-162466, SEP. 27, 1967
TRAVEL EXPENSES - MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE CONCERNING PROPRIETY OF REIMBURSING EMPLOYEE FOR EXPENSES OF FAMILY DURING TEMPORARY DUTY. EMPLOYEE WHO WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY HAD TO EMPLOY SOMEONE TO TAKE CARE OF HIS CHILDREN AT NIGHT BECAUSE HIS WIFE WORKED AT NIGHT MAY NOT HAVE SUCH ADDITIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY FAMILY AT DOMICILE REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL TO TRANSACTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS TO COME WITHIN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE PROVISION IN SEC. 1.4, S. GTR EGC. AND THEREFORE PAYMENT MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED.
TO MISS SALLY N. CROSS:
YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1967, REQUESTS OUR DECISION WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF $30 WHICH IS PART OF THE SUM OF $34 STATED ON THE ENCLOSED VOUCHER BY MR. ANTHONY J. MALANOSKI IS ALLOWABLE UNDER HIS TRAVEL ORDER NO. 154-67 DATED JANUARY 5, 1967.
THAT AMOUNT OF $30 IS THE SUM OF THE SIX $5 ITEMS DESCRIBED ON THE VOUCHER BY MR. MALANOSKI AS ,OFFICIAL EXPENSE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED IF I HAD NOT BEEN IN A TRAVEL STATUS.' YOU SAY THE $30 WAS DISALLOWED ON HIS ORIGINAL VOUCHER WHICH READ---
"MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE INCURRED AT HOME CAUSED BY TRIP. (MY WIFE WORKS THREE EVENINGS A WEEK AND SOMEONE WAS REQUIRED TO STAY OVERNIGHT ON JANUARY 29, FEBRUARY 1, 2, 5, 7, AND 8 WITH CHILDREN.) $5 PER NIGHT.'
WE NOTE ALSO THE STATEMENTS IN MR. MALANOSKI'S LETTER OF JUNE 13, 1967, TO YOU, AND IN HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 14, 1967, TO MR. A. M. FLATEQUAL.
THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED AMOUNT OF $5 PER NIGHT WAS INCURRED BY MR. MALANOSKI'S WIFE AT THEIR DOMICILE, AND WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED BY HIM, BUT THE LAW AND REGULATIONS AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT OF A TRAVELER'S EXPENSES WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY AWAY FROM HIS DOMICILE DO NOT RELATE TO EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIS FAMILY AT HIS DOMICILE. SUCH REIMBURSEMENT IS LIMITED TO SUBSISTENCE OF THE TRAVELER AND THE EXPENSE OF HIS ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION IN GOING TO AND FROM HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION AS WELL AS CERTAIN SPECIFIED EXPENSES AT THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION.
SECTION 1.4 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT TRAVELING EXPENSES WHICH WILL BE REIMBURSED ARE CONFINED TO THOSE EXPENSES ESSENTIAL TO THE TRANSACTING OF THE OFFICIAL BUSINESS. TO THE SAME EFFECT SEE SECTION 10.5 OF SUCH REGULATIONS.
WE DO NOT REGARD THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED EXPENSE ITEMS OF $5 AS BEING ESSENTIAL TO THE TRANSACTING OF THE OFFICIAL BUSINESS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. THE FACT THAT AN EMPLOYEE OR HIS FAMILY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD AN OCCASION TO INCUR A PERSONAL EXPENSE AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION-- EXCEPT FOR HIS PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL TRAVEL--IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR SHIFTING SUCH AN EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT. COMPARE 35 COMP. GEN. 361 AT PAGE 362.
YOUR LETTER DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF $4 REPRESENTING FRACTIONAL PER DIEM THAT APPEARS ON THE VOUCHER. UNDERSTAND INFORMALLY THAT MR. MALANOSKI NOW ACCEPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE REASON WHY THAT AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLOWED ON HIS ORIGINAL VOUCHER.