B-163801, MAY 1, 1968
Highlights
HILL HAS FURNISHED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE SUCH EXTERMINATION PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE SALE OF HIS HOUSE. YOU QUESTION WHETHER SUCH FEE IS REIMBURSABLE AS A REAL ESTATE EXPENSE UNDER SECTION 4 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. SECTION 4.2 OF CIRCULAR A-56 SETS FORTH THE TYPES OF EXPENSES WHICH ARE REIMBURSABLE IN CONNECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. SUCH EXPENSE IS CLEARLY AN ITEM OF MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE IS NOT REIMBURSABLE. WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH.
B-163801, MAY 1, 1968
TO MR. E. U. BERNAUER:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 12, 1968, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR DECISION WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT A RECLAIM VOUCHER FOR $150 IN FAVOR OF MR. THOMAS E. HILL, JR., AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF MINES, INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER FROM ROLLA, MISSOURI, TO COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND.
THE AMOUNT OF THE VOUCHER REPRESENTS A TERMITE EXTERMINATION FEE PAID BY MR. HILL IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF HIS FORMER RESIDENCE IN ROLLA. MR. HILL HAS FURNISHED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE SUCH EXTERMINATION PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE SALE OF HIS HOUSE. YOU QUESTION WHETHER SUCH FEE IS REIMBURSABLE AS A REAL ESTATE EXPENSE UNDER SECTION 4 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.
SECTION 4.2 OF CIRCULAR A-56 SETS FORTH THE TYPES OF EXPENSES WHICH ARE REIMBURSABLE IN CONNECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. WHILE A TERMITE INSPECTION FEE MAY BE AN EXPENSE CUSTOMARILY INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE AND, THUS, REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE REGULATIONS, THE COST OF EXTERMINATING TERMITES DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SAME CATEGORY. RATHER, SUCH EXPENSE IS CLEARLY AN ITEM OF MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE IS NOT REIMBURSABLE.
THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.