B-169752, JUN. 2, 1970
Highlights
YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT YOU DID NOT PAY ANY CLOSING EXPENSES AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT ON YOUR RESIDENCE. THIS WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE SALES AGREEMENT COVERING THE PURCHASE OF YOUR DWELLING WHICH PROVIDED THAT NO CLOSING COSTS WERE PAYABLE WHEN MORTGAGE FINANCING WAS OBTAINED BY THE SELLER SUCH AS IN YOUR CASE. IT WAS INDICATED THAT EVEN IF THE CLOSING COSTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE DWELLING THERE WOULD BE NO AUTHORIZATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH EXPENSES. THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE CLEARLY PAID BY YOU OUT OF THE DOWNPAYMENT AND INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED AT SETTLEMENT. IN THAT CONNECTION WE NOTE THAT THE DOWNPAYMENT WAS A PART OF THE SELLING PRICE OF $31. IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT THE CLOSING COSTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE SELLING PRICE.
B-169752, JUN. 2, 1970
TO MR. ELLIOT NEEDLEMAN:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 20, 1970, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 8, 1970, WHICH DISALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLOSING EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A PURCHASE OF A DWELLING AT YOUR NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION.
YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT YOU DID NOT PAY ANY CLOSING EXPENSES AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT ON YOUR RESIDENCE. THIS WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE SALES AGREEMENT COVERING THE PURCHASE OF YOUR DWELLING WHICH PROVIDED THAT NO CLOSING COSTS WERE PAYABLE WHEN MORTGAGE FINANCING WAS OBTAINED BY THE SELLER SUCH AS IN YOUR CASE. ALSO, IT WAS INDICATED THAT EVEN IF THE CLOSING COSTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE DWELLING THERE WOULD BE NO AUTHORIZATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH EXPENSES.
YOU SAY THAT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT YOU PAID CERTAIN CLOSING COSTS IDENTIFIED BY THE LEVITT CORPORATION (SELLER), AND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE CLEARLY PAID BY YOU OUT OF THE DOWNPAYMENT AND INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED AT SETTLEMENT. IN THAT CONNECTION WE NOTE THAT THE DOWNPAYMENT WAS A PART OF THE SELLING PRICE OF $31,710. THUS, IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT THE CLOSING COSTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE SELLING PRICE.
IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 13, 1967, B-161110, COPY HEREWITH, WE CONSIDERED AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION AND CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER BASIS UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS FOR TREATING ANY PART OF THE SELLING PRICE--IN YOUR CASE $31,710--AS OTHER THAN THE SALE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 8, 1970, OF DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM.