INTEREST - GENERAL RULE - FOREIGN CLAIMANTS THE RULE THAT INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE PAID IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRACT OR STATUTE PROVIDING PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS ARISING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS WELL AS TO CLAIMS ARISING IN THE UNITED STATES AND. 1965: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 18. THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE STATED REASON THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON ITS UNPAID ACCOUNTS OR CLAIMS MAY NOT BE MADE EXCEPT WHERE INTEREST IS STIPULATED BY CONTRACT OR IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT SINCE NEITHER OF THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WAS PRESENT INCIDENT TO YOUR CLAIM THERE WAS NO PROPER BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE.
B-145465, OCT. 5, 1965, 45 COMP. GEN. 169
INTEREST - GENERAL RULE - FOREIGN CLAIMANTS THE RULE THAT INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE PAID IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRACT OR STATUTE PROVIDING PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS ARISING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS WELL AS TO CLAIMS ARISING IN THE UNITED STATES AND, THEREFORE, INTEREST ON A CLAIM FOR UNPAID RENT FOR PREMISES IN WEST GERMANY MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.
TO HERMANN BECKER, OCTOBER 5, 1965:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1965, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 19, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON UNPAID RENT FOR THE PREMISES AT 19 RHABANUSSTRASSE, FULDA, WEST GERMANY, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1949 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1950.
THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE STATED REASON THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON ITS UNPAID ACCOUNTS OR CLAIMS MAY NOT BE MADE EXCEPT WHERE INTEREST IS STIPULATED BY CONTRACT OR IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT SINCE NEITHER OF THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WAS PRESENT INCIDENT TO YOUR CLAIM THERE WAS NO PROPER BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE.
THE FOREGOING RULE IS SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS COURT DECISIONS. IN GRAY V. DUKEDOM BANK, 216 F.2D 108, THE COURT STATED---
INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, EVEN WHERE PAYMENT HAS BEEN UNREASONABLY DELAYED, DOES NOT FOLLOW AUTOMATICALLY UPON ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS INTEREST CAN BE RECOVERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ONLY IF EXPRESS CONSENT TO SUCH A RECOVERY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CONGRESS. * * *
IN SMYTH V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329, PAGE 353, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATED---
* * * THE RULE IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION, INTEREST DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL.
THE SAME COURT IN THE CASE OF SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. UNITED STATES 261 U.S. 299, 304, STATED THE RULE, AS FOLLOWS:
THE RULE IS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STIPULATION TO PAY INTEREST OR A STATUTE ALLOWING IT, NONE CAN BE RECOVERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UPON UNPAID ACCOUNTS OR CLAIMS. UNITED STATES V. ROGERS, 255 U.S. 163, 169; UNITED STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION AND TRADING CO., 253 U.S. 330; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, 216; ANGARICA V. BYRD, 127 U.S. 251; HARVEY V. UNITED STATES, 113 U.S. 243.
THE FOREGOING RULE IS APPLICABLE TO OUR OWN NATIONALS AS WELL AS FOREIGN NATIONALS. REGARDLESS OF THE LONG DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF YOUR RENTAL CLAIM AND THE REASONS THEREFOR IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE RULE AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTE PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST UPON SETTLEMENTS BY OUR OFFICE WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE INTEREST CLAIMED.