March 12, 1997
                                                


                             GSBCA 13924-RELO


                    In the Matter of ROGER G. GREENING


     Roger G. Greening, Plano, TX, Claimant.

     Larry G. France, Acting Chief, Accounting Branch, Internal
Revenue Service, Dallas, TX, appearing for Department of the
Treasury.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     Mr. Roger Greening is an employee of the Internal Revenue
Service.  In early 1996, his official duty station was relocated
from Chicago, Illinois to Dallas, Texas.  The agency denied his
request for reimbursement of the cost of title insurance for the
home he purchased in Dallas because the settlement sheet indicated
that Mr. Greening did not pay such costs.  By letter dated October
23, 1996, Mr. Greening requested that this Board review the
agency s denial of his request for reimbursement.

     Even though the settlement statement clearly indicated that
the seller paid for the title insurance, Mr. Greening contends that
the circumstances of his bargain are such that he should be
reimbursed for these costs:

     [A]lthough the Settlement Statement indicates that the
     seller paid this expense, the documentation clearly shows
     that the $1200 was a price concession made by the seller
     and in reality the amount was paid by me and is
     reimbursable to me.  Title insurance of this sort is
     routinely paid for by the purchaser of the property. 

Mr. Greening explains as follows:  

     [T]he $1200.00 shown as being paid by the seller [for
     title insurance] was in fact a price concession to me
     rather than a closing expense being paid by the seller. 
     . . . the seller agreed to pay this expense if I used a
     mortgage company of their choosing.  I could apply 1% of
     the amount financed ($1200.00) to discount points or at
     my option toward paying the Title Policy premium or other
     closing costs.  If I elected to apply the amount to
     discount points . . . I would have been entitled to
     reimbursement of $1200.00 for points and the full
     $2042.00 paid for title insurance. . . . Title Insurance
     is normally paid by the buyer.  

     While Mr. Greening may have had the option to direct the
seller to pay an additional point, and pay for the title insurance
himself, he did not exercise this option.  Instead, he chose to
have the seller pay $1200 of the cost of title insurance.  Under
the circumstances, the agency properly denied Mr. Greening s claim
for reimbursement.

     Statute requires that an agency reimburse certain of its
employees  relocation expenses.  Those expenses include the sale of
the residence of the employee at the old station when the expenses
are "required to be paid by him."  5 U.S.C.  5724a(4)(A) (1994). 
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) echoes the statutory
requirement: "[T]he Government shall reimburse an employee for
expenses required to be paid by him/her in connection with the sale
of one residence at his/her old official station . . . ."  41 CFR
302-6.1 (1996).  Similarly, the FTR provides that "[a]n employee
shall be reimbursed only for expenses actually incurred and paid by
the employee."  41 CFR 302-6.1(f). 

     In Harlan C. Thiel, GSBCA 13668-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,710
(1996), this Board  addressed a similar situation in which an
employee who sold his home requested reimbursement for broker s
fees in excess of what the settlement statement indicated he paid. 
The seller argued that the purchaser was a broker who had reduced
the purchase price of the house by his share of the commission
which he could have received.  Therefore, because the purchase
price had been reduced by the amount of the purchaser s commission,
the seller contended that he had actually paid the purchaser s
commission and sought reimbursement.  The Board cited the statute
and regulation quoted above and denied reimbursement, stating:

     "Pay" means "to satisfy (someone) for services rendered
     or property delivered," or "to give in return for goods
     and services."  Webster's Third New International
     Dictionary (1986).  "Incur" means "to become liable or
     subject to."  Id.  Here, the settlement sheet  shows that
     [claimant] . . . paid his broker $8,685 . . . .  
     [Claimant] owed $8,685, which was the extent of [his]
     liability and the amount he paid.

     In the context of this claim, the meaning of the
     statutory and regulatory provisions quoted above is
     clear.  The Government will reimburse its employees for
     those reimbursable housing relocation expenses for the
     bargain that was made.  The Government is not authorized
     to reimburse its employees for the hypothetical expenses
     of the bargain that the parties may have contemplated,
     but did not make.  

97-1 BCA at 143,333.

     In this case, with regard to the costs of the title insurance
for which Mr. Greening seeks reimbursement, the settlement sheet
indicates that the seller, and not Mr. Greening, paid such costs.
Thus, the result of the negotiation between Mr. Greening and the
purchaser was that Mr. Greening was not liable for these costs. 
Whether Mr. Greening could have, as he alleges, negotiated a
different bargain, in which he would have paid the cost of title
insurance and directed the seller to pay other costs, is not
relevant.  As we held in Harlan C. Thiel, the relevant transaction
is the bargain that was made.  The Government is not authorized to
reimburse its employees for the hypothetical expenses of the
bargain that the parties may have contemplated, but did not make. 

     The agency properly denied Mr. Greening s request for
reimbursement.



    

                                   ____________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge