B-235374, Jan 11, 1990
Highlights
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence transaction expenses - Reimbursement - Eligibility - New residence construction CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence transaction expenses - Taxes - Reimbursement - Eligibility DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. Kelley: The issue in this decision is whether an employee may be reimbursed for an agricultural transfer tax he incurred when he purchased land to construct a residence at his new duty station. /1/ The employee. Which is imposed by the State of Maryland. Is designed to encourage farming and discourage development of remaining farmlands and open space.
B-235374, Jan 11, 1990
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence transaction expenses - Reimbursement - Eligibility - New residence construction CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence transaction expenses - Taxes - Reimbursement - Eligibility DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. To locate substantive decisions addressing this issue, refer to decisions indexed under the above listed index entry.
Paul V. Kelley:
The issue in this decision is whether an employee may be reimbursed for an agricultural transfer tax he incurred when he purchased land to construct a residence at his new duty station. /1/ The employee, Mr. Paul V. Kelley, paid a 4 percent tax at settlement for land which had previously received favorable tax assessments based on agricultural use. The tax, which is imposed by the State of Maryland, is designed to encourage farming and discourage development of remaining farmlands and open space.
Under the applicable regulations governing the reimbursement of relocation expenses, mortgage and transfer taxes paid at settlement may be reimbursed. /2/ However, these same regulations deny reimbursement for expenses that result from the construction of a residence except expenses which are comparable to those reimbursable for purchase of an existing residence. /3/
Mr. Kelley would not have paid this agricultural transfer tax if he had purchased an existing residence since that residence would not have been assessed at the lower agricultural use tax rates. Rather, the tax was imposed because Mr. Kelley purchased land which was previously assessed for agricultural use and constructed a residence on that land. In that regard, our decisions have held that, under the applicable regulations cited above, taxes or other fees which are assessed only on new construction and not on existing residences may not be reimbursed as relocation expenses. Carl Trueblood, 65 Comp.Gen. 557 (1986); Gregory Scheer, B-232720, Sept. 13, 1989.
Accordingly, the claim for reimbursement may not be paid.
/1/ This decision was requested by Mr. V. Joseph Startari, Authorized Certifying Officer, Department of Energy.
/2/ Federal Travel Regulations (FTR), paras. 2-6.2d(1)(d) (Supp. 4, Aug. 23, 1982), incorp by ref., 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-7.003 (1987).
/3/ FTR, paras. 2-6.2d(1)(j) and 2-6.2d(2)(f).