About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-199838 1 (1981-10-20)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadjvg0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 1~~., A DECISION FILE: B-199838 THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20548 DATE: October 20, 1981 MATTER OF: Payment of Building Permit Fee for Government Construction Project DIGEST: Claim by municipality for payment of building permit fee for Government construction project which arose in 1972, is barred by 31 U.S.C. § 71a, which bars claims accruing more than 6 years prior to receipt in the General Ac- counting Office. Statute's exception for claims by states, territories, possessions and the District of Columbia does not apply to subdivisions of states. See B-159110, June 27, 1966. This is in response to a request made on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation for our opinion regarding the propriety of payment by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of a building permit fee in the amount of $2,826.50 to the Village of Farmington, Minnesota, in connection with the construction of the Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARIC) in 1972. The record shows that the Traffic Control Center was erected pursuant to a contract that contained the standard Permits and Responsibilities clause which provides that: The Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Government, be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any applicable Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations, in connection with the prosecution of the work. * * * However, the contractor apparently did not secure a building permit or pay the building permit fee in accordance with the requirements of the Farmington Village ordinance. Since the contractor dissolved its business upon completion of the ARTCC, the municipality now seeks payment by the FAA for the building permit fee. A legal opinion prepared by the FAA Great Lakes Region takes the position that the building permit fee was in the nature of a tax against the Government and thus unauthorized. The opinion states that because no services were performed by the municipality in return for the fee, it amounted to a tax. The opinion also asserts that the re- sponsibility for determining whether the fee was to be paid, and its payment if owed, rested with the contractor under the Permits and Responsibilities clause. /ii~9(

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most