BNUMBER:  B-258930
DATE:  September 19, 1995
TITLE:  Mary Beth Beckman-Najera

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Mary Beth Beckman-Najera

File:     B-258930

Date:     September 19, 1995

DIGEST

A transferred employee, who used a mobile home as her residence at her 
old duty station in Arizona, authorized another individual to sell it 
for her and claimed the commission she paid as a residence sales 
expense.  Under Arizona law, a mobile home which is sold separately 
from real estate is deemed to be a house trailer or a motor vehicle 
and an individual who sells such a unit for another is required to be 
licensed as a used house trailer or motor vehicle dealer.  Unless the 
individual who sold the mobile home was so licensed in the State of 
Arizona at the time of the sale, the claim may not be allowed.

DECISION

This decision responds to a request from the Forest Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture,[1] concerning whether a transferred 
employee may be reimbursed a commission paid for selling her mobile 
home residence by an individual who was not a licensed real estate 
broker or salesperson.

Ms. Mary Beth Beckman-Najera, an employee of the Forest Service 
stationed in Bellemont, Arizona, was transferred to Idyllwild, 
California, and reported for duty there on May 20, 1991.  Her 
residence at her old duty station was a mobile home on leased space in 
a trailer park.  On May 10, 1991, she and her husband signed over 
title to the mobile home to another individual to sell it for them.  
The mobile home was sold in August 1991 for $7,000 and Ms. 
Beckman-Najera claimed reimbursement for $710, the amount paid to the 
individual as commission and expenses.  The Forest Service disallowed 
her claim because Arizona law requires that all real estate brokers or 
salespersons be licensed and the individual who performed the service 
for her did not possess a real estate license.

Residence sales expenses incident to a transfer may be reimbursed 
under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5724a(a)(4) (1988).  The implementing Federal Travel 
Regulation (FTR) in section 302-6.1(b) thereof,[2] includes a mobile 
home as a residence for reimbursement purposes.  The term "mobile 
home" is defined in section 302-1.4(i) of the FTR to mean "any type of 
house trailer or mobile dwelling constructed for use as a residence 
and designed to be moved overland, either by self-propulsion or 
towing."[3]  Section 302-6.2(a) of the FTR[4] states that a "broker's 
fee or real estate commission paid by the employee for services in 
selling his/her residence is reimbursable. . . ."

We have held that, where the law of the jurisdiction requires that a 
person must be licensed to sell real estate for another, reimbursement 
for the fee charged for the sale of residential real property may be 
allowed only if the person is duly licensed.[5]  While these decisions 
involve a real estate licensing requirement, the focus of the cases is 
whether the law of the jurisdiction where a service is performed 
requires that an individual who performs that service for another be 
duly licensed.

Under Arizona law, a person who sells real estate on behalf of another 
for a fee or commission is required to be licensed as a real estate 
broker or salesperson.[6]  Thus, the Attorney General for the State of 
Arizona has ruled that a person who sells a house trailer affixed to 
land as a unit for another is required to possess a real estate 
license.[7]  Otherwise, Arizona law provides that a person who engages 
in selling used house trailers on behalf of another for which a fee is 
charged must be licensed as a used house trailer or motor vehicle 
dealer.[8]

Therefore, if the individual who sold the mobile home apart from the 
lot for Ms. Beckman-Najera was licensed to sell used house trailers, 
she may be reimbursed the fee paid.[9]  If not, she may not be 
reimbursed.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Relocation
Residence transaction expenses
Broker fees
Reimbursement

1. Natividad Taitano, AOB, Acting Branch Chief, Pacific Southwest 
Region, San Francisco, California. 

2. 41 C.F.R.  sec.  302-6.1(b) (1994).

3. 41 C.F.R.  sec.  302-1.4(i) (1994).

4. 41 C.F.R.  sec.  302-6.2(a) (1994).

5. John F. Curley, B-190107, Feb. 8, 1978; Mathew Biondich, B-197893, 
June 4, 1980.

6. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.  sec.  32-2122 (1989 - effective April 1, 1990).

7. Op. Atty. Gen. [Arizona] No. 70-17, cited as a note to Ariz. Rev. 
Stat. Ann.  sec.  28-1301.

8. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.  sec.  28-1301 and  sec.  28-1304.

9. Under FTR  sec.  302-6.2(a), the amount reimbursed may not be in excess 
of rates generally charged by brokers in the locality.  Also, under 
FTR  sec.  302-6.2(g)(1), the total amount of reimbursement may not exceed 
10 percent of the actual price ($7,000), or $700.