___________________

                               July 25, 1997
                            ___________________



                             GSBCA 13982-RELO


                      In the matter of JAMES Y. WANG


     James Y. Wang, Arlington, VA, Claimant.

     John F. Best, Chief, Finance and Accounting Division,
Directorate of Resource Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Army.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Mr. James Y. Wang, an employee of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, seeks to be reimbursed the amount of $32,000, a "buyer s
premium" charged in connection with his purchase of a new residence
in Virginia pursuant to a permanent change of station (PCS)
transfer from Bayonne, New Jersey to Arlington, Virginia.  The
Corps of Engineers has requested a ruling on 1) whether this charge
is allowable at all under applicable regulations, and 2) if so,
whether it is subject to the overall limitation of five percent of
the purchase price or $10,957, whichever is less, on the amount
of allowable expenses that may be reimbursed in connection with the
purchase of a home at the new official station.  For the reasons
stated, we conclude that no part of this charge should be
reimbursed.
 
     Claimant's house was purchased through Northern Virginia Home
Auctions.  Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the auction
procedure, claimant was required to pay a seven percent "buyer's
premium" to be added to the final bid on the property and paid by
the buyer to an escrow title company.  The property settlement
statement reflected a seven percent buyer s premium totaling
$32,000 on the subject property.  This premium is listed on the
statement as a "commission paid at settlement."

     Mr. Wang's claim was received by the PCS claims officer in the
Pentagon Renovation Office on January 24, 1996.  In this
submission, claimant sought reimbursement of $37,086.09 for costs
incurred in purchasing his house at the new duty station.  The
claims officer noted that, of this amount, $32,000 was described as
an "escrow agent's fee," but appeared to be a commission for the
auctioneer.  The agency decided that this portion of Mr. Wang's
claim should be forwarded to the General Accounting Office (GAO)
for a ruling under 31 U.S.C.  3529(a).  The request for a section
3529 decision was referred to the Board by GAO in November 1996. 
The remainder of Mr. Wang's claim was reviewed by the claims
officer and allowed to the extent of $3,796.74.

     Mr. Wang, in maintaining that the $32,000 expense should be
reimbursed, notes that ordinarily the seller of the property is
required to pay a sales commission to a broker for selling his
residence.  Here, the seller of the property was not represented by
a broker.  Under the rules of the auction, the buyer was required
to pay the commission.  He argues that the buyer s premium is an
incidental charge that is reimbursable under Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR  302-6.2(f) (1995), which states: 
 Incidental charges made for required services in selling and
purchasing residences may be reimbursable if they are customarily
paid by the seller of a residence at the old official station or if
customarily paid by the purchaser of a residence at the new
official station.  

     We conclude that this provision of the FTR is not applicable
here and that the buyer's premium is not an item that should be
reimbursed.  This fee is charged to reimburse the auction company
for its services in procuring a buyer for the property.  The fact
that the charge is denominated an escrow agent fee and is assessed
to the buyer does not make it reimbursable under the FTR.  Under
the terms of the auction procedure, the auctioneer had no authority
to fix the price of the property and could not accept an offer so
as to bind the parties.  The auctioneer was authorized to secure a
purchaser and to obtain offers for the property, subject to the
approval of the owner.  As such, the auctioneer effectively acted
as a broker with qualified or limited authority within the meaning
of the applicable state statute.  See Virginia Statutes Annotated,
Title 54.1, Chapter 21, Article 1 (1996). 

     In addressing reimbursement of brokers' fees and real estate
commissions, the FTR explicitly states: 

     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) (1995) (emphasis added).  The Board and GAO have
consistently applied this regulation to hold that such fees are 
nonreimbursable with respect to the purchase of a home.  See, e.g.,
Charles A. Peters, GSBCA 13643-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,689 (1996); 
Joseph H. Rosen, GSBCA 13799-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,708 (1996);
Charlie F. Beecham, B-247315 (May 18, 1992); Harold R. Fine, B-
224628 (Jan. 12, 1988).  Even if Mr. Wang had shown that this was
an expense customarily paid by the purchaser in this area, which he
did not, the less specific language in FTR 302-6.2(f) cannot
override the express prohibition of FTR 302-6.2(a).  Accordingly,
claimant may not be reimbursed for the buyer s premium. 





                                        ____________________
                                        CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                        Board Judge