Skip to Highlights
Highlights

Since real estate expenses are not specifically allowed by the act and the assignment location is considered only a temporary duty station not qualifying the employee for relocation expenses. Is not entitled to real estate expenses for the purchase of a residence at the location where he was assigned under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. /1/ While serving with the Bureau of Land Management at Riverside. Legal authority for the temporary assignment was the Intergovernmental personnel Act. Denial was grounded on lack of authority to pay real estate expenses under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. The employing agency's disallowance was correct. Real estate selling or purchase expenses are not specified in 5 U.S.C.

View Decision

B-226555, Nov 30, 1987

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Residence Transaction Expenses - Reimbursement - Eligibility - Residency DIGEST: An employee assigned to a state government agency under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act may not be reimbursed real estate expenses for purchase of a home at the location of the assignment, since real estate expenses are not specifically allowed by the act and the assignment location is considered only a temporary duty station not qualifying the employee for relocation expenses.

John S. Scull:

In this decision we hold that Mr. John S. Scull, an employee of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, is not entitled to real estate expenses for the purchase of a residence at the location where he was assigned under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. /1/

While serving with the Bureau of Land Management at Riverside, California, Mr. 8cull received an assignment to Sacramento, California, with the 8tate of California Department of parks and Recreation in September 1986. Legal authority for the temporary assignment was the Intergovernmental personnel Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 3371-3376, providing for the interchange of employees between federal executive agencies and state and local governments on 2-year assignments. Mr. Scull purchased a home at Sacramento and claimed real estate purchase expense reimbursement. The employing office denied his claim. Denial was grounded on lack of authority to pay real estate expenses under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, with those expenses not being expressly included among the travel and relocation items set forth in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3375.

The employing agency's disallowance was correct.

Only those travel or relocation expenses specified in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3375 may be reimbursed on an assignment pursuant to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. Glenn A. Truglio, 65 Comp.Gen. 891 (1986). Real estate selling or purchase expenses are not specified in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3375 and therefore are not payable. Further, the assignment is not a permanent change of station and the assignment location is considered a temporary duty station. Richard M. Morse, B-217301, June 4, 1985. Real estate expenses are authorized for the sale and purchase of a residence at the old and new permanent duty stations, respectively, but not at a temporary duty station. Federal Travel Regulations, para. 2-6.1, incorp. by ref., 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-7.003.

Accordingly, we substain the denial of Mr. Scull's claim.

/1/ Mr. Edward P. Greenberg, Chief, Division of Finance, Bureau of Reclamation, requested our decision.

GAO Contacts