About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-236571 1 (1989-11-09)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadnqf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


OThe Comptroler General
        of the United States
        Washington, D.C. 204

        Decision



        Matterof. Anna L. Janni

        File:     B-236571

        Date:     November 9, 1989


        DECISION

        The issue in this case is whether Ms. Janni, an employee of
        the Internal Revenue Service, may be reimbursed for several
        real estate expenses incurred incident to her transfer in
        1988. The expenses relate to the purchase of a residence at
        her new duty station, and the sale of a residence at her old
        station by a relocation service contractor. On the record
        presented, there is no legal basis for allowance of any of
        the expenses claimed.

        Concerning the purchase of the new residence, the agency
        properly disallowed the loan set-up fee (also referred to
        as an escrow agent's fee) on the basis that the fee was
        paid as a condition to obtaining a loan. As such, it is
        a finance charge, which is a nonreimbursable item under
        the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR), para. l-6.2d(2)(e)
        (Supp. 4, Aug. 23, 1982), incorp, by ref., 41 C.F.R.
        S 101-7.003 (1988). The claimant's contention that the
        charge is reimbursable under the Internal Revenue Service
        Employees Relocation Guide does not change the result.
        The Federal Travel Regulations govern employee relocation
        expense entitlement. Where the agency quide is inconsistent
        with the FTR, any erroneous information contained therein
        is not binding on the government. See Mark Kroczynski,
        64 Comp. Gen. 306 (1985), and cases-cted.

        The two hazard insurance items are nonreimbursable, without
        exception, under FTR, para. 2-6.2d(2)(a), since such
        insurance is against loss or damage to property. See Mark
        Kroczynski, 64 Comp. Gen. 306, supra.

        The fee for a structural inspection is not reimbursable as
        an incidental charge under FTR, para. 2-6.2f, unless the
        service was required, that is, imposed by law or by the
        lender. Leonard L. Garofolo, 67 Comp. Gen. 449 (1988).
        Therefore, it was proper for the agency to provide Ms. Janni
        with the opportunity to establish that the inspection was





                       C4/             39'95

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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most