Skip to Highlights
Highlights

TRANSFERS - TEMPORARY QUARTERS - OCCUPYING OF PERMANENT QUARTERS DENIAL OF AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY VOUCHER FOR TEMPORARY SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES FOR EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TRANSFERRED FROM NEW YORK CITY TO SAN DIEGO. EMPLOYEE WHO CLAIMS SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES AND RENT WHILE LIVING IN PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT NEW STATION BECAUSE THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW HOME WAS CONTINGENT UPON OBTAINING FUNDS FROM SALE OF FORMER HOME. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY QUARTERS ALLOWANCE. AUTREY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 14. CONSOLI WAS PAID TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER FROM NEW YORK CITY.

View Decision

B-171046, NOV. 23, 1970

TRANSFERS - TEMPORARY QUARTERS - OCCUPYING OF PERMANENT QUARTERS DENIAL OF AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY VOUCHER FOR TEMPORARY SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES FOR EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TRANSFERRED FROM NEW YORK CITY TO SAN DIEGO, CALIF., AND WHO OCCUPIED HIS NEW HOME ON RENTAL BASIS PRIOR TO TITLE PASSAGE. EMPLOYEE WHO CLAIMS SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES AND RENT WHILE LIVING IN PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT NEW STATION BECAUSE THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW HOME WAS CONTINGENT UPON OBTAINING FUNDS FROM SALE OF FORMER HOME, AND WHO HAD HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS DELIVERED AT HOME AT THE TIME MUST BE REGARDED AS OCCUPYING PERMANENT QUARTERS AND THEREFORE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT MAY HAVE RESULTED IN SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY QUARTERS ALLOWANCE.

TO MR. LEWELL V. AUTREY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 14, 1970, INQUIRING WHETHER YOU MAY CERTIFY FOR PAYMENT A VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF MR. ANTHONY CONSOLI, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, FOR TEMPORARY SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 5724A, AS IMPLEMENTED BY BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969.

PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE-CITED PROVISIONS, MR. CONSOLI WAS PAID TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRANSFER FROM NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 1969, TO OCTOBER 13, 1969. HE HAS MADE FURTHER CLAIM, HOWEVER, FOR $75.59 IN SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES INCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 10 AND 11, AND FOR $312.32 FOR RENT DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 12 TO OCTOBER 13, ALLEGING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH OCCUPANCY OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2.5B(3) OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56, WHICH PROVIDES:

"TEMPORARY QUARTERS REFERS TO LODGING OBTAINED TEMPORARILY BY THE EMPLOYEE AND/OR MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHO HAVE VACATED THE RESIDENCE QUARTERS IN WHICH THEY WERE RESIDING AT THE TIME THE TRANSFER WAS AUTHORIZED."

MR. CONSOLI'S LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1970, STATES THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO SELL HIS FORMER RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK UNTIL OCTOBER 9, 1969, AND THAT SINCE THE PURCHASE OF HIS NEW RESIDENCE IN SAN DIEGO HAD BEEN MADE CONTINGENT UPON OBTAINING FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE NEW YORK PROPERTY, TITLE TO THE SAN DIEGO RESIDENCE DID NOT PASS UNTIL OCTOBER 14. FROM SEPTEMBER 12, UNTIL THAT DATE, MR. CONSOLI OCCUPIED THE SAN DIEGO PROPERTY AND THEREBY INCURRED THE RENTAL EXPENSE THAT CONSTITUTES THE BASIS OF HIS CLAIM. SOME DISCREPANCY EXISTS AS TO THE DATE ON WHICH HIS FAMILY MOVED INTO THE HOUSE, SINCE THE RENT RECEIPT HE SUBMITTED WITH HIS CLAIM INDICATES PAYMENT FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 12 AND ENDING OCTOBER 13, WHEREAS THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING OF THE MOVING COMPANY WHICH TRANSPORTED HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS INDICATES DELIVERY TO THAT RESIDENCE ON SEPTEMBER 10. WE MUST ASSUME, ON THE BASIS OF THE BILL OF LADING AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO RECEIPTS WERE SUBMITTED FOR MOTELS OR OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE 10TH AND 11TH OF SEPTEMBER, THAT THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS FAMILY OCCUPIED THE RESIDENCE BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 10, 1969.

THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHILE OCCUPYING TEMPORARY QUARTERS INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER ARE INTENDED TO DEFRAY EXTRA EXPENSE ABOVE THOSE WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED DURING OCCUPANCY OF PERMANENT QUARTERS IN WHICH HE INTENDS TO REMAIN. THUS, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT MR. CONSOLI MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY RENT FROM SEPTEMBER 12 TO OCTOBER 13, IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 10 TO OCTOBER 13, HE AND HIS FAMILY WERE OCCUPYING QUARTERS THAT WERE IN FACT PERMANENT. SEE B 163689, MARCH 20, 1968, AND B-160904, MARCH 7, 1967. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM FOR SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES FOR SEPTEMBER 10 AND 11, AS WELL AS FOR RENT FROM SEPTEMBER 12, IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE FACT THAT HIS ARRANGEMENTS MAY HAVE RESULTED IN SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW.

THE TRAVEL VOUCHER WHICH WAS FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER IS HEREWITH RETURNED AND MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

GAO Contacts