August 6, 2007
CBCA 703-RELO
In the Matter of HWAI-TAI LAM
Hwai-Tai Lam, Washington, DC,
Claimant.
Lori Brock, Chief, PCS Travel
Accounting, Financial Services Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin,
TX, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs.
KULLBERG, Board Judge.
Claimant, Hwai-Tai Lam, an
employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), appeals the denial of
reimbursement for costs that he incurred as a result of his transfer. Subsequent to filing his appeal, the VA=s May 11, 2007 submission to the Board advised that
Mr. Lam would be allowed reimbursement for two previously denied costs, which
were the cost of the tax certificate ($15) and taxi fare from his former
residence to the airport ($24). The VA,
however, has continued to deny the remainder of Mr. Lam=s claim for costs related to the settlement on his
Washington, D.C. home. For the reasons
stated below, we deny Mr. Lam=s claim for those costs.
Background
In November 2006, Mr. Lam, a
health systems specialist with the VA, was transferred from Los Angeles,
California to Washington, D.C. He
purchased a home in Washington, D.C. and submitted his claim for the costs
incurred in that purchase. The VA denied
reimbursement for the loan application fee ($540), the commitment fee ($565),
and courier fees ($45). Mr. Lam argues,
generally, that those costs are allowable.
The VA contends that the loan application fee and commitment fee are not
reimbursable under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and the courier fees
are not reimbursable because the fees were not paid to the lender.
Discussion
The VA properly denied
reimbursement for Mr. Lam=s loan application fee. Under the FTR, reimbursement for loan
application fees is allowed only in the case of VA and Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) loans. 41 CFR
302-11.200(f)(1) (2006) (FTR 302-11.200(f)(1)).
Mr. Lam did not obtain either a VA or FHA loan. Instead, he obtained a conventional uninsured
loan, so he is not allowed reimbursement unless his loan application fee was
charged in lieu of a loan origination fee, which is reimbursable. See Charles W. Adams, GSBCA
16485-RELO, 05-1 BCA & 32,956. But,
the VA reimbursed Mr. Lam separately for a loan origination fee that was 1% of
the amount of his loan, and the FTR limits reimbursement for loan origination
fees and other similar fees to 1% of the amount of the loan. FTR 302-11.200(f)(2). Reimbursement for loan origination fees and
other fees in excess of 1% of the amount of the loan would require that Mr. Lam
demonstrate that the application fee A(a)
[d]oes not include prepaid interest, points, or a mortgage discount; and (b)
[i]s customarily charged in the locality where the residence is located.@ FTR
302-11.201. Mr. Lam has presented no
evidence to show that his loan application fee was a reimbursable fee that was
customarily charged in excess of 1% of the loan, and his claim for the loan
application fee fails for lack of evidence.
Mr. Lam is not entitled to
reimbursement for the loan commitment fee.
The FTR provides that reimbursement is not allowed for A[a]ny fee, cost, charge, or expense determined to be
part of the finance charge under the Truth in Lending Act, Title I, Pub. L.
90-321, as amended, and Regulation Z issued by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (12 CFR part 226), unless specifically authorized in ' 302-11.200 . . . .@ FTR 302-11.202(g). A Aloan
commitment fee is a finance charge within the meaning of Regulation Z because
it was imposed . . . incident to the extension of credit.@ David P.
Brockelman, GSBCA 14604-RELO, 98-2 BCA &
29,971, at 148,287. Consequently, the
commitment fee that Mr. Lam paid was a finance charge that was properly denied
by the VA.
Reimbursement for Mr. Lam=s courier fees is not allowed. The FTR provides for reimbursement of various
miscellaneous costs in connection with the sale of a home. FTR 302-11.200(f). Courier fees are not specifically included
among those reimbursable costs, but the FTR does provide for reimbursement for
required services that are customarily paid by the buyer. FTR 302-11.200(f)(12). However, Mr. Lam has the burden of proving
that the courier fees were required for a reason other than personal convenience
and were customarily charged to the buyer.
See Andrew Perez, GSBCA 16764-RELO, 06-1 BCA & 33,206; Stanley
H. Levine, GSBCA 14909-RELO, 00-1 BCA &
30,603 (1999). The record only shows
that Mr. Lam paid a company named AApple@ for the courier service, but there is no evidence
that the courier fee was required or customarily charged. That portion of Mr. Lam=s claim also fails for lack of evidence.
Decision
With the exception of the
costs of the tax certificate ($15) and taxi fare ($24), which the VA determined
to have been reimbursable subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the
remainder of the claim is denied.
______________________
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge