____________________________ November 14, 1996 ____________________________ GSBCA 13643-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES A. PETERS Charles A. Peters, Madison, WI, appearing for Claimant. Andrew Koerner, Acting Chief, Travel & Transportation Branch, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA, appearing for the Department of the Interior. HYATT, Board Judge. The claimant, Mr. Charles A. Peters, a supervisory hydrologist employed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), seeks reimbursement of certain expenses he incurred in connection with his permanent change of station (PCS) from Lakewood, Colorado to Madison, Wisconsin. Specifically, Mr. Peters has requested that his agency's disallowance of the following claimed expenses be reviewed: Buyer's broker fee (new home) $1,970.00 Underwriting fee (new home) 100.00 Tax form fee (new home) 4.25 Cashier's check fee 5.00 Federal Express fees 60.00 Car-top carrier rental 26.88 Long distance telephone calls 2.84 TOTAL $2,168.97 Mr. Peters' transfer to Madison, Wisconsin was effective March 25, 1994. Pursuant to this transfer, Mr. Peters sold his home in Colorado, settling on March 25, 1994, and purchased a home in Madison, settling on March 15, 1994. To facilitate the purchase of a home in Wisconsin during the ten days allotted for a house hunting trip, Mr. Peters retained a real estate broker to act as his agent. The lion's share of Mr. Peters' claim is for recovery of the buyer's broker fee that he paid in conjunction with the purchase of the home in Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Peters maintains that this expense should be reimbursed because he reduced the overall relocation costs paid by the Government by retaining a buyer agent in lieu of using a relocation contractor and home finding service, for which he would have been eligible. In addition, although he recognizes that this cost is expressly excluded from reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-6.2(a) (1995), he argues that this regulation predates the widespread enactment of state laws (including Wisconsin's) defining and recognizing the buyer/broker relationship as distinct from the seller/broker relationship. Notwithstanding these points, however, we cannot, under the applicable regulation, allow recovery of the commission Mr. Peters paid to his buyer agent. The FTR provides in pertinent part: A broker's fee or real estate commission paid by the employee for services in selling his/her residence is reimbursable but not in excess of rates generally charged for such services by the broker or by brokers in the locality of the old official station. No such fee or commission is reimbursable in connection with the purchase of a home at the new official station. 41 CFR 302-6.2(a) (emphasis added). This regulation has been consistently applied to preclude the reimbursement of such fees. See, e.g., Joseph H. Rosen, GSBCA 13799-RELO (Oct. 3, 1996); Charlie F. Beecham, B-247315 (May 18, 1992); Harold R. Fine, B-224628 (Jan. 12, 1988). Absent a change in the express language of this regulation, there is no authority to reimburse claimant for this fee. Mr. Peters also seeks reimbursement of an underwriting fee, imposed by the mortgage company to cover the fee charged by its underwriter for reviewing the loan, and a tax form fee, paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in conjunction with a request (form 4506) that a copy of claimant's personal income tax filing be sent to the mortgage company. Both of these fees were disallowed by USGS on the ground that they are finance charges. Mr. Peters responds that these costs are out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the sale/purchase of a home. The underwriting fee and tax form fee are both nonrecoverable under the FTR, 41 CFR 302-6.2(2)(d)(v), which provides that unless specifically authorized elsewhere in the regulation, no fees, charges, costs, or expenses determined to be part of the finance charge under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.  1605 (1994), may be reimbursed. The Truth in Lending Act provides that the finance charge shall be determined as the sum of all charges imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit. GAO has consistently held that the underwriting fee paid by the borrower is a charge paid incident to and as a prerequisite to the extension of credit. Kenneth R. Pedde, B-223797 (Apr. 20, 1987); George J. Wehrstedt, B-192851 (May 11, 1979). Similarly, the fee paid to the IRS to have a copy of claimant's tax filing provided to the mortgage company is an indirect charge incident to the extension of credit. Richard P. Johnson, B-218754 (Sept. 17, 1985). Mr. Peters also incurred charges of $60, paid to Federal Express, for expedited shipment of papers needed for his real estate transactions. Mr. Peters used Federal Express to ship these documents because he did not attend the closings in person. Under applicable regulations, 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1) and (2), various miscellaneous items are listed as reimbursable and nonreimbursable. Federal Express fees are not items listed under subsection 6.2(d)(1)(i)-(v), nor do these costs qualify under subsection 6.2(d)(1)(vi) as similar in nature to those listed in the previous paragraphs. The FTR also authorizes payment of incidental charges imposed as a "required service" in the residence sale and purchase process. There is no indication in the record that the use of Federal Express was "required" by the lender, however. Thus, there is no basis to reimburse these costs. See James A. Schampers, 69 Comp. Gen. 573 (1990); Mark B. Gregory, B-229230 (Mar. 14, 1988). Similarly, the five dollar fee charged by the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Denver, for a cashier's check used in Mr. Peters' real estate transactions, is also neither specifically recoverable under 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1) through (v) nor a type of expense reimbursable under 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1)(vi). As such, this expense cannot be reimbursed. See William V. Ferris, B-172742 (Nov. 24, 1980). The charges for long distance telephone calls made in connection with the real estate transactions are properly recoverable as a miscellaneous expense under 41 CFR 302-3.1. See Paul J. Clemens, B-217372 (Aug. 2, 1985); B-185160 (Jan. 2, 1976). Finally, Mr. Peters seeks to recoup the cost of renting a U- Haul cartop carrier which he used to transport his family of four's possessions for use until they were able to move into the new residence. Mr. Peters contends that under the applicable guidelines, given the amount of luggage needed for four people, he could have qualified for approval to use two vehicles to relocate from Denver to Madison. Again, his approach was more economical. Under rules applicable to the shipment of household goods, relocating employees are limited to reimbursement of the lower cost method of transportation as determined by the agency through a cost comparison of the commuted rate system and shipment under a government bill of lading (GBL). See Fuller C. Jones, B-224660 (Mar. 14, 1988). USGS approved shipment under a GBL. The record does not reflect whether the maximum amount authorized under that GBL was spent in the shipment of claimant's household goods from Denver to Madison. To the extent that it was not, if the employee chooses to move some part of his or her household goods by some other means, the Government's financial responsibility is limited to the maximum cost the Government would have incurred had all household goods been shipped in one lot. Id.; 41 CFR 101-40.203- 2(b), (d) (1995). Thus, Mr. Peters may be reimbursed the rental fee for the car top carrier to the extent this amount, plus the amount paid for the shipment of the bulk of claimant's household goods, will not exceed the maximum amount authorized in the GBL. To summarize, this claim is allowed with respect to the long distance telephone calls and, provisionally, the rental fee for the car top carrier. The balance of the claim is disallowed. ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge