BNUMBER:  B-259520
DATE:  December 7, 1995
TITLE:  Furniture Rental Agreements-Option-to-Buy Clauses

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

Matter of:Furniture Rental Agreements-Option-to-Buy Clauses

File:     B-259520

Date:     December 7, 1995

DIGEST

An agency questions the practice of reimbursing employees stationed in 
foreign areas for furniture rental agreements that include 
option-to-buy clauses because, in many cases, the employees end up 
owning the furniture at the end of the contract term.  The agency may 
reimburse employees for the expenses of such agreements if the 
employee has no other choice but to enter into such an agreement.  
However, if the employee does exercise the purchase option, the 
employee must return to the agency the amount of the reimbursement 
that is being credited toward the purchase.

DECISION

The U.S. Customs Service requests a decision regarding furniture 
rental agreements that include option-to-buy clauses, which the agency 
states is the standard commercial practice in Ottawa, Canada, where 
many of its employees are stationed.  As discussed below, the agency 
may reimburse employees for payments made under these types of 
agreements, but the employee is not entitled to buy the furniture at 
the end of the contract term without returning the reimbursement for 
the rental payments.

BACKGROUND

Employees stationed in foreign posts are entitled to a living quarters 
allowance (LQA) that includes "separate rental of necessary furniture 
at not to exceed 25 percent of the applicable maximum annual quarters 
allowance rate."  Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, 
Foreign Areas) (SR) 131.2, Nov. 1, 1992.  The statutory authority for 
this allowance is found at 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5923 (1988).

To illustrate the type of contract at issue here, the agency provided 
the following two examples:

Example A is an 18-month lease requiring monthly payments of $60 for a 
total of $1,080.  According to the lease, "The lessee shall have the 
option to purchase by applying 100 percent of the rental paid during 
the life of the contract, towards the total cost of the merchandise, 
plus a fee of 1 percent of the total cost of the merchandise at the 
end of the contract."

Example B is a 12-month lease with monthly payments of $123.91.  This 
lease states, "The lessee shall have option to purchase by applying 
110% of the rental paid during the first year towards the purchase 
price (value) stipulated on present contract provided he fulfills all 
terms and conditions."  The total value of the furniture stated on the 
lease is $1293.38.

Using these types of agreements allows the employees to purchase the 
furniture using government funds.  The agency points out that this is 
contrary to the stated intent of the allowance, which is to reimburse 
employees for the expenses of renting quarters at foreign posts.  The 
agency asks whether reimbursement for all such agreements should be 
denied on the grounds that option clauses intrinsically increase the 
cost of the contract, or whether such reimbursement should be denied 
only when the employee exercises the option to purchase the furniture.

OPINION

Although we have not considered option-to-purchase clauses in the 
context of the State Department's Standardized Regulations, we have 
considered these clauses in the context of subsistence expenses for 
employees under the Federal Travel Regulation, issued by the General 
Services Administration.

In Lucius Grant, Jr., 62 Comp. Gen. 635, 637 (1983), we held that 
"there is no authority to include payments made on items of personal 
property for the purpose of eventual ownership."  We see no reason to 
adopt a different rule here.

In both of the examples provided by the agency, the employee is being 
given a credit toward the purchase of furniture based on funds 
provided by the agency.  This type of arrangement is contrary to the 
well-established rule that a federal employee is obligated to account 
for any gift, gratuity, or benefit received from private sources 
incident to the performance of official duty.  Michael Farben, 67 
Comp. Gen. 79 (1987).

The gift rule typically arises in cases involving discounts, bonuses 
or promotional items provided to airline travelers.  The rationale for 
this rule is that items of value purchased with government funds 
belong to the government and may not be retained by the employee, 
absent some authority to do so.  Southwest Airlines, B-254858, Nov. 
22, 1995.

This rationale applies with equal force in the instant case since the 
credit applied to the purchase of the furniture is earned with 
government funds.  Therefore, the credit belongs to the government, 
and not the employee.

We do not believe the rule described above prohibits agencies from 
reimbursing employees for furniture rental contracts containing 
purchase option clauses if, as the agency states, the employees have 
no other choice.  It is not the option clauses themselves that violate 
the rule proscribing gifts to federal employees; rather, it is the 
conversion of the rental payments into ownership that violates the 
rule.

Accordingly, when an employee who has been receiving reimbursement for 
furniture rental expenses chooses to exercise a purchase option, the 
employee is obligated to return to the agency any rental 
reimbursements the employee received.

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