Skip to Highlights
Highlights

WHERE CLAIMANT CONTENDS THAT HIS DOWN PAYMENT WAS SUBSTANTIAL AND FAR IN EXCESS OF THE ITEMS LISTED AS CLOSING COSTS TO THE SELLER. THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS FOR TREATING ANY PART OF THE SELLING PRICE AS OTHER THAN THE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE AND THEREFORE THE VOUCHER MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. HAGEN FEELS THAT SINCE HIS DOWN PAYMENT WAS SUBSTANTIAL AND FAR IN EXCESS OF THE ITEMS LISTED AS CLOSING COSTS TO THE SELLER. 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. 105 - AS OTHER THAN THE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE.

View Decision

B-165841, DEC. 7, 1970

TRANSFERS - INCIDENTAL EXPENSES DECISION DENYING CLAIMANT'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF DOWN PAYMENT ON A NEW HOME INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF STATION FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C. WHERE CLAIMANT CONTENDS THAT HIS DOWN PAYMENT WAS SUBSTANTIAL AND FAR IN EXCESS OF THE ITEMS LISTED AS CLOSING COSTS TO THE SELLER, THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS FOR TREATING ANY PART OF THE SELLING PRICE AS OTHER THAN THE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE AND THEREFORE THE VOUCHER MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

TO MR. FLOYD P. HOUGH:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 22, 1970, REFERENCE F5023 NCPABF), RELATIVE TO THE CLAIM OF MR. HAROLD H. HAGEN, COVERING EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF A HOME UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTY STATION.

THE INFORMATION FURNISHED SHOWS THAT MR. HAGEN AND HIS WIFE PURCHASED A RESIDENCE IN HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, FROM LEVITT & SONS INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER OF MR. HAGEN FROM PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, TO WASHINGTON, D.C. THE PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDED SETTLEMENT COSTS. MR. HAGEN FEELS THAT SINCE HIS DOWN PAYMENT WAS SUBSTANTIAL AND FAR IN EXCESS OF THE ITEMS LISTED AS CLOSING COSTS TO THE SELLER, REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD BE MADE.

IN OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 22, 1969, B-165841, TO YOU, 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 THIS CASE $34,105 - AS OTHER THAN THE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE. WHAT WE SAID IN THAT CASE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

GAO Contacts