B-173506, SEP 27, 1971

B-173506, SEP 27, 1971

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - REIMBURSEMENT FOR SALE OF RESIDENCE - EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF ENTITLEMENT DECISION THAT MR. VINCENT CARBONE, AN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEE, IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOLLOWING PERMANENT CHANGE OF DUTY STATION IN ORDER THAT HE MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES RESULTING FROM THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF A RESIDENCE. GAO HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT OMB CIR. NO. A-56 (ATTACHMENT A) AUTHORIZATION FOR EXTENSION OF ONE-YEAR LIMIT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SETTLEMENT ON AN EXISTING CONTRACT ENTERED INTO DURING THE INITIAL YEAR FOLLOWING TRANSFER. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE MR. CARBONE HAD NO EXISTING CONTRACT OF SALE, NO EXTENSION MAY BE GRANTED.

TO MISS MARY P. KOUTSOUROS:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 24, 1971, FILE REFERENCE A:F:F, WITH ATTACHMENTS, AND YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 4, 1971, REQUESTING AN ADVANCE DECISION AS TO WHETHER MR. VINCENT CARBONE, AN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEE, IS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOLLOWING HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY STATION IN ORDER THAT HE MAY BE REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES RESULTING FROM THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF A RESIDENCE.

YOU INDICATE THAT BY TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION NWK-70-17, DATED MAY 5, 1970, MR. CARBONE WAS TRANSFERRED ON PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, TO ASBURY PARK, NEW JERSEY. HE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION ON MAY 11, 1970.

YOU ALSO INDICATE THAT ON JUNE 4, 1970, MR. CARBONE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE NEAR HIS NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION CONTINGENT UPON THE SALE OF HIS FORMER RESIDENCE. APPARENTLY DUE TO THE DEPRESSED REAL ESTATE MARKET IN THE SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, AREA AND IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT MR. CARBONE CHANGED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REDUCED THE SELLING PRICE, HE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO CONCLUDE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF HIS FORMER RESIDENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE HE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION.

MR. CARBONE REQUESTED THAT HE BE GRANTED A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE ONE -YEAR TIME PERIOD FOR THE SALE OF HIS FORMER RESIDENCE AND THE PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENCE. YOU REQUEST OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO SUCH EXTENSION.

THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE EXPIRATION OF MR. CARBONE'S INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD (MAY 10, 1971) ARE FOUND IN ATTACHMENT A OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED, TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5, EFFECTIVE JUNE 26, 1969. SECTION 4.1E OF SUCH REGULATIONS PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:

"E. THE SETTLEMENT DATES FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OR LEASE TERMINATION TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS REQUESTED ARE NOT LATER THAN ONE (INITIAL) YEAR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION, EXCEPT THAT *** (2) AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME NOT IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR MAY BE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE WHEN HE DETERMINES THAT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE EXCEPTION EXIST WHICH PRECLUDED SETTLEMENT WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF THE SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACTS OR LEASE TERMINATION ARRANGEMENT ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD. THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE TO JUSTIFY THE EXCEPTION UNDER (2) ABOVE SHALL BE SET FORTH IN WRITING."

THIS OFFICE HAS HELD THAT THE ABOVE REGULATION WAS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION FOR SETTLEMENT ONLY ON AN EXISTING CONTRACT ENTERED INTO DURING THE INITIAL ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER. SEE DECISION B-168392, DECEMBER 16, 1969, COPY ENCLOSED. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE MR. CARBONE HAS NO EXISTING CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF HIS FORMER RESIDENCE, NO EXTENSION OF TIME MAY BE MADE FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE SALE OF THAT RESIDENCE.

THE CONTRACT MR. CARBONE ENTERED INTO ON JUNE 4, 1970 (PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF HIS INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD), FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW DUTY STATION APPARENTLY REMAINS IN EFFECT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE SEE NO OBJECTION TO AN EXTENSION BEING GRANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.