Skip to Highlights
Highlights

A-56 WHICH EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO MAKE SETTLEMENT WHEN SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACTS ARE ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY EMPLOYEE WITHIN INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD WAS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL JUNE 26. 1969 AND IS NOT RETROACTIVE. IT IS INAPPLICABLE IN PRESENT CLAIM WHERE SETTLEMENT WAS NOT CONSUMMATED WITHIN 1 YEAR OF DATE OF TRANSFER AND NO BASIS EXISTS UPON WHICH TO ALLOW REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED. HAMMEGER: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR TRANSFER WAS EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 13. WHILE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR HOUSE WAS APPARENTLY SIGNED IN JANUARY 1968. WHICH WAS WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF REPORTING TO WASHINGTON.

View Decision

B-164461, DEC. 12, 1969

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES--TRANSFERS--RELOCATION EXPENSES--"SETTLEMENT DATE" LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS UPON RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF RESIDENCE IN SEATTLE, WASH; ON FEB. 19, 1968, INCIDENT TO TRANSFER TO WASHINGTON, D.C; EFFECTIVE FEB. 13, 1967, SINCE AMENDMENT TO BUREAU OF BUDGET CIR. NO. A-56 WHICH EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO MAKE SETTLEMENT WHEN SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACTS ARE ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY EMPLOYEE WITHIN INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD WAS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL JUNE 26, 1969 AND IS NOT RETROACTIVE, IT IS INAPPLICABLE IN PRESENT CLAIM WHERE SETTLEMENT WAS NOT CONSUMMATED WITHIN 1 YEAR OF DATE OF TRANSFER AND NO BASIS EXISTS UPON WHICH TO ALLOW REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED.

TO MR. JACK W. HAMMEGER:

THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20, 1969, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-164461, JUNE 24, 1968, WHICH HELD THAT A VOUCHER FOR $2,484.17 IN YOUR FAVOR FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN SELLING YOUR HOUSE IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER TO WASHINGTON, C., COULD NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR TRANSFER WAS EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 13, 1967. WHILE A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR HOUSE WAS APPARENTLY SIGNED IN JANUARY 1968, WHICH WAS WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF REPORTING TO WASHINGTON, THE SETTLEMENT DATE THEREFOR WAS FEBRUARY 19, 1968. WE HELD THAT PAYMENT WOULD BE IMPROPER SINCE SETTLEMENT WAS NOT MADE WITHIN 1 YEAR OF THE DATE OF REPORTING TO WASHINGTON AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 4.1D OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56. YOU INDICATE THAT IT HAS COME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CIRCULAR AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SETTLEMENT IN A CASE SUCH AS YOURS.

DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THE 1-YEAR LIMITATION IN THE REGULATIONS WAS WHEN THE SETTLEMENT DATE WAS NECESSARILY DELAYED BY LITIGATION WHICH WAS NOT INVOLVED IN YOUR SITUATION. HOWEVER, ON JUNE 26, 1969, THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET AMENDED SECTION 4.1D (NUMBER CHANGED TO 4.1E) OF THE CIRCULAR TO AUTHORIZE AN EXTENSION OF THE 1-YEAR PERIOD AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * 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 ABOVE AMENDMENT WAS NOT RETROACTIVE AND IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE INITIAL 1-YEAR PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE, JUNE 26, 1969. SINCE SUCH AMENDMENT IS INAPPLICABLE TO YOUR CLAIM, WE HAVE NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO ALLOW REIMBURSEMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE (SELLING) EXPENSES INCURRED BY YOU.

GAO Contacts