Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ January 4, 2000 ____________________ GSBCA 15115-RELO In the Matter of JEFFREY P. ZIPPIN Jeffrey P. Zippin, Herndon, VA, Claimant. Karen D. Baker, Chief, Division of Financial Management Services, National Business Center, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Jeffrey P. Zippin asks us to review his claim for reimbursement for several of the expenses he incurred as a result of his transfer from Washington, D.C. to Nevada. We agree with Mr. Zippin that he should be reimbursed for the lodging expenses he incurred while on a house hunting trip. We also agree that his family began occupying temporary quarters the day they arrived in Nevada, and that he should be reimbursed for the lodging expenses they incurred that day. The agency correctly decided not to reimburse Mr. Zippin for a document preparation fee, a tax service fee, and a broker s commission that he paid when he purchased a home in Nevada. Background Jeffrey P. Zippin is an employee of the Department of the Interior (DOI). In July 1994, while he, his wife, and their three children were on vacation in Hawaii, DOI approved his transfer to Nevada. At that time, Mr. Zippin s duty station was Washington, D.C. Mr. Zippin and his family concluded their vacation in Hawaii and flew to California on July 27. Mr. Zippin says that before he left Hawaii, DOI authorized him to make a house hunting trip to Nevada.[foot #] 1 Consequently, instead of spending their remaining vacation days ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Although the only travel authorization in our file is dated August 4, 1994, DOI does not contest Mr. Zippin s statement. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- in California as they had planned to do, the Zippins began driving to Reno, Nevada so that they could look for housing there. Upon their arrival in Reno, the Zippins discovered that lodging was difficult to find because the city was hosting an antique car festival. With the assistance of the local Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Zippin and his family found a unit at the Thunderbird Resort that they rented for three nights (July 31, August 1, and August 2). Mr. Zippin has a receipt from the Thunderbird Resort for $243, dated July 31 at 5:22 in the evening, which contains the address of the resort. Although the receipt does not say what Mr. Zippin purchased for $243, the amount is consistent with his assertion that he paid for three nights lodging at $81 per night. The Thunderbird Resort is a timeshare property and does not usually rent its units by the night, and so it does not provide the same type of receipts and information that a hotel would be able to provide. The first of three DOI decisions that Mr. Zippin asks us to review concerns his lodging expenses in Reno. Mr. Zippin s travel authorization stated that DOI would reimburse him for lodging and for meals and incidental expenses in connection with a house hunting trip, and Mr. Zippin asked DOI to reimburse him for the expenses that he incurred on July 31, August 1, and August 2.[foot #] 2 DOI decided to reimburse Mr. Zippin for the meals and incidental expenses that he incurred on these days, and to disallow the claim for lodging because, in its view, Mr. Zippin had not supported his request for reimbursement for lodging with a receipt, and had not established whether the charges he incurred were for anyone other than him. Next, Mr. Zippin asks us to review DOI s decision concerning reimbursement for the temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) that he incurred in connection with his transfer to Nevada. Mr. Zippin s travel authorization stated that DOI would reimburse Mr. Zippin for sixty days of TQSE. On the form that Mr. Zippin completed in support of his request for TQSE reimbursement, he said that the movers packed his household goods on August 23, and that this was the start of Temporary Quarters in [the Washington, D.C. area]. The form also shows that on August 24, Mr. Zippin s wife and children flew to Nevada, leaving at 7:00 that morning. For that day, he requested a total of $114.49 for his wife s and children s expenses, which included $60.86 for lodging. Mr. Zippin submitted a receipt from a hotel in Reno that showed a charge of $60.86 for a room on August 24. At the top of the form that Mr. Zippin completed when he asked DOI for reimbursement, he stated, See attached daily breakdown on subsistence. The attached daily breakdown sheet for August 24 states, Family en route and start temp. For August 25, Mr. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 The travel authorization does not say that DOI would reimburse any of Mrs. Zippin s expenses, and it does not appear that Mr. Zippin asked DOI to reimburse any of her expenses. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Zippin stated on the form that he completed in support of his request for reimbursement of TQSE, Start of Temporary Quarters in Reno, NV for [his wife and children]. For that day, he requested a total of $158.86 for his wife s and children s expenses, including $60.86 for lodging. DOI decided to disallow the claim for $60.86 for lodging on August 24 because, in its view, the form that Mr. Zippin completed in support of his request for reimbursement shows that he intended to start occupying temporary quarters on August 25. The third decision made by DOI that Mr. Zippin asks us to review concerns reimbursement for the expenses he incurred when he purchased a newly-constructed house from a builder in Nevada. DOI disallowed Mr. Zippin s claim for $160 for a document preparation fee, $71 for a tax service fee, and $5758 for a buyer s commission. Mr. Zippin says that it is customary in the Reno area for a builder to add three percent to the purchase price of a new house in order to pay the commission of a buyer s broker. The documentation that Mr. Zippin provided concerning the purchase of his house lists the document preparation fee and the tax service fee as loan fees, and shows that DOI reimbursed Mr. Zippin for a loan origination fee equal to one percent of his loan amount. DOI disallowed the $160 document preparation fee because it duplicated the loan origination fee. DOI disallowed the tax service fee and the buyer s commission because it decided that such fees are not reimbursable expenses. Discussion As explained below, DOI should reimburse Mr. Zippin in part for the house hunting trip expenses he incurred on July 31, August 1, and August 2, 1994. DOI should reimburse Mr. Zippin $60.86 for his family's temporary quarters lodging expenses on August 24, but should not reimburse Mr. Zippin for more than sixty days of TQSE. DOI correctly decided not to reimburse Mr. Zippin for his home purchase expenses. House hunting trip The regulations in effect when the Zippins made their house hunting trip provided that an employee would be reimbursed for lodging expenses incurred during a house hunting trip if he provided receipts to support all of his claimed lodging expenses. If an employee lost his lodging receipts or if lodging receipts were impractical to obtain, he could be reimbursed so long as he provided a statement acceptable to the agency that included the name and address of the lodging facility, the dates the lodging was obtained, and the cost incurred. 41 CFR 301-7.9, 302-2.1, - 4.3(b) (1995). DOI decided that Mr. Zippin did not provide a receipt to support his claimed lodging expenses for July 31, August 1, and August 2, because the receipt showing that he paid $243 to the Thunderbird Resort does not say that the payment was for lodging. Assuming, without deciding, that DOI is correct and that Mr. Zippin has not provided a receipt for his claimed lodging expenses, DOI should nonetheless reimburse Mr. Zippin. The regulations provided for reimbursing Mr. Zippin if it was impractical for him to obtain a receipt, so long as he provided a statement concerning his lodging expenses that was acceptable to the agency. Mr. Zippin stated that the Thunderbird Resort is a timeshare property, not a hotel, and does not provide the kind of receipt that a hotel would provide. Mr. Zippin submitted the only receipt that he had to support his claim. Mr. Zippin also provided DOI with the name and address of the lodging facility, the dates he lodged there, and the cost he incurred. DOI has not given us any reason why the statement made by Mr. Zippin, which included all of the information required by the regulations, was unacceptable. DOI should reimburse Mr. Zippin for his lodging on July 31, August 1, and August 2, 1994, because a receipt was impractical to obtain, he provided a statement that included all of the information required by the regulations in such circumstances, and the agency has not explained why his statement is unacceptable. DOI also disallowed Mr. Zippin s claim for lodging because he did not establish that the charges he incurred were only for him, and the regulations did not allow DOI to reimburse him for his children s expenses. 41 CFR 302-4.1(a). Based upon the information provided by Mr. Zippin, it appears that the Thunderbird Resort, a timeshare property, did not have established rates for single-occupancy, double-occupancy, etc. such as a hotel or motel would have had. In similar circumstances, the General Accounting Office (GAO), which had the authority to settle relocation claims until mid-1996, decided that when an employee stayed in a facility that charged only one rate regardless of the number of occupants, the employee should be reimbursed what it would have cost him to obtain single- occupancy lodging in a hotel or motel. T. C. Crabe, B-158941 (May 4, 1966). This rule is consistent with the intent of Congress to reimburse employees for expenses they incur when they travel to seek new housing as the result of a transfer. See Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996). In order to determine what it would have cost Mr. Zippin to obtain single-occupancy lodging in a hotel or motel, we are guided by the Government's determination that $53 per night was a reasonable expenditure for a night s lodging for an employee traveling to Reno in mid-1994. 41 CFR, ch. 301 app. A. For an employee making a house hunting trip, however, the regulations limited reimbursement for a night s lodging to $40 for the employee alone. 41 CFR 302-2.1, -2.2(b), -4.3(b). Because the regulations limited Mr. Zippin's reimbursement to $40 per night, which is within the amount that the Government believed was a reasonable expenditure for a night's lodging in Reno, DOI should reimburse Mr. Zippin $40 per night for the lodging expenses that he incurred on July 31, August 1, and August 2. Temporary quarters lodging expenses The regulations in effect in mid-1994 explained that temporary quarters consisted of lodging obtained for the purpose of temporary occupancy after vacating the residence occupied at the time the agency authorized the employee s transfer. The employee could occupy temporary quarters at one location while the employee s family occupied temporary quarters at a different location. The eligibility period for reimbursement for temporary quarters subsistence expenses began the same day that en route travel per diem reimbursement ended. The time for computing the number of days in temporary quarters began when either the employee or any member of the employee s family began using temporary quarters for which a claim was made. 41 CFR 302-5.2(c), (f), (g)(1). As stated previously, DOI authorized a maximum of sixty days of TQSE reimbursement for Mr. Zippin. Because one line on Mr. Zippin s request for reimbursement said, for August 25, Start of Temporary Quarters in Reno, NV for [his wife and children], DOI concluded that Mr. Zippin intended to begin occupying temporary quarters on August 25. All of the other information supplied by Mr. Zippin in support of his request establishes that his family began occupying temporary quarters in Nevada on August 24. Mr. Zippin s household goods in the Washington, D.C. area were packed on August 23, and his request for reimbursement states that this was the start of Temporary Quarters in the Washington, D.C. area. On the morning of August 24, Mr. Zippin s wife and children flew to Nevada. His daily breakdown of expenses for August 24 shows that his family was en route and start[ed] temp. on that day. Mr. Zippin submitted a receipt from a hotel in Nevada, showing a charge of $60.86 for a room on August 24. It seems likely that Mr. Zippin s August 25 entry was meant to show that he was claiming reimbursement for his family s meals and incidental expenses at the en route travel rate on August 24, which was their en route travel day, and that he then began claiming reimbursement at the temporary quarters rate on August 25, which was their first full day of occupancy in temporary quarters. 41 CFR 302-2.2(b), - 5.4(c). We will not read the one entry for August 25 as contradicting or outweighing all of the other statements made and information provided by Mr. Zippin concerning his family s occupancy of temporary quarters. He and his family vacated their residence on August 23, and his family began living in temporary quarters when they checked into a hotel in Nevada on August 24, the same date they completed their en route travel. Mr. Zippin could, therefore, claim reimbursement for his family s temporary quarters lodging expenses for August 24. According to the regulations, Mr. Zippin s TQSE period began on August 24, the first date that he claimed reimbursement for his family s lodging expenses. Although DOI should reimburse Mr. Zippin for the temporary quarters lodging expenses incurred by his family on August 24, it should not reimburse Mr. Zippin for more than sixty consecutive days of TQSE, beginning with that date. Home purchase expenses We agree with DOI that Mr. Zippin is not entitled to be reimbursed for the $160 document preparation fee. The regulations in effect when Mr. Zippin transferred provided that DOI would reimburse him for a loan origination fee, which was a fee paid by a borrower to compensate the lender for administrative type expenses incurred in originating and processing a loan. Reimbursement for a loan origination fee was limited to a maximum of one percent of the loan amount unless the employee showed by clear and convincing evidence that the higher rate (1) did not include prepaid interest, points, or a mortgage discount, and (2) was customarily charged in the locality where the residence was located. 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1)(ii). We have previously explained that this fee includes the cost to the lender of preparing documents needed to close the loan, and that an employee who is reimbursed for the maximum allowable loan origination fee cannot also be reimbursed for a document preparation fee. John P. Kemp, GSBCA 14335-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,751. DOI reimbursed Mr. Zippin for a one percent loan origination fee, and he has not established that he is entitled to be reimbursed at a higher rate. Because the loan origination fee included the cost to the lender of preparing the documents needed to close the loan, Mr. Zippin is not entitled to be reimbursed for the duplicative $160 document preparation fee. We also agree with DOI that Mr. Zippin is not entitled to be reimbursed for the $71 tax service fee. The regulations provided that DOI could not reimburse Mr. Zippin for any fee, cost, charge, or expense determined to be part of the finance charge under the Truth in Lending Act. 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(2)(v). The Board and GAO have both explained that a tax service fee is a prerequisite to the extension of credit and is not, therefore, reimbursable. Gerald Fediw, GSBCA 14256-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,513 (1997) (citing cases). Finally, Mr. Zippin is not entitled to be reimbursed for the $5758 buyer s commission. The regulations provided that DOI could not reimburse Mr. Zippin for any broker s fee paid in connection with the purchase of a home at the new official station. 41 CFR 302-6.2(a). We have consistently applied this regulation to preclude the reimbursement of fees such as those paid by Mr. Zippin. Terry Beck, GSBCA 14590-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,969; Joseph H. Rosen, GSBCA 13799-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,708 (1996); Charles A. Peters, GSBCA 13643-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,689 (1996). ___________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge