Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                           
 
                             April 21, 1998
                                                           
 
 
                            GSBCA 14455-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of CHARLOTTE WILEY
 
 
        Charlotte Wiley, East Lansing, MI, Claimant.
 
        David  K. Barnes,  Office of  Chief  Counsel, General  Legal
   Services, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing for
   the Department of the Treasury.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant,  Charlotte Wiley, is  an employee of  the Internal
   Revenue  Service.   In  1991,  she  relocated from  Los  Angeles,
   California, to Washington, DC, pursuant to  a permanent change of
   station  (PCS) move.    Moving expenses  were authorized  and she
   received an advance for relocation expenses.
 
        Claimant  alleges that in 1991 she submitted all appropriate
   moving expense  vouchers.  However,  in 1994, she was  advised by
   the agency that $570 of  the travel advance previously issued for
   her PCS move  remained outstanding.  She  subsequently discovered
   that   two  vouchers,  which  she  alleges  had  previously  been
   submitted,  had  not been  processed.   She then  resubmitted the
   vouchers in 1994.  The agency  issued a Form W-2 for 1994,  which
   included in her  gross income moving expenses which  she incurred
   and  for which  she  received a  travel advance  in  1991.   Also
   included in her  gross income were amounts  for Relocation Income
   Tax Allowances (RITAs) resulting from the vouchers filed in 1994.
 
        Claimant believes the Form W-2 for 1994 is erroneous, as she
   had received her relocation advance in 1991, which she considered
   reimbursement  for relocation expenses.   She requested  from the
   agency,  and was denied,  an amendment of her  W-2.  According to
   the  agency,   the  relocation   advance  in  1991   was  not   a
   reimbursement of  expenses, as   [a]dvances are  not evidence  of
   expenses .  .  . [and]  are not  considered to  be  paid until  a
   voucher is filed . . . . 
 
        Claimant  also questioned  why she  did not receive  the two
 
                                                                   2
 
   amounts for RITAs included in her 1994 W-2 and requested from the
   agency a recalculation  of the RITAs.  The  agency responded that
   she did not receive the RITAs because the net amount  after taxes
   was applied to her outstanding  relocation advance.  Claimant has
   requested that the Board review the agency s  decision and direct
   the agency to amend her 1994 W-2 and recalculate the RITAs.
 
        We  cannot  grant  the  relief  requested.    The  authority
   transferred  by Congress, and thereafter delegated to the General
   Services Administration  and redelegated to this  Board, includes
   the authority to rule on  travel and relocation expense claims of
   civilian employees.  The issues raised by claimant do not involve
   reimbursement of relocation  costs, but the determination  of the
   appropriate year  for reporting such  costs as part of  her gross
   income.    We  do   not  have  the  authority  to   make  such  a
   determination, nor do we  have the authority to direct  amendment
   of claimant s Form W-2. 
 
        With  regard to  the  calculation of  the RITAs  included in
   claimant s   gross  income,  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the
   calculation method set forth in the Federal Travel Regulation was
   not followed.   Rather, the  implication is that  the calculation
   would  be different if  the reimbursements were  deemed income in
   another  tax year.    RITA  payments  are determined  based  upon
   various  assumptions,  which the  regulations  recognize may  not
   fully  reflect the  circumstances of  a  claimant.   41 CFR  302-
   11.8(a) (1991).  As we here do  not make a determination that the
   reimbursements  should be deemed income in  another year, we also
   cannot direct  the recalculation  of the RITAs  on such  a basis.
   Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge