Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 12, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 16, 1976
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP79-00498A000700150001-7.pdf99.04 KB
Approved For Release 2001c0~ F 1 1 TfAt0498A0007001500 *OGC Has Reviewed* 16 January 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence Claim for Reimbursement of Cost of Shipping His Foreign-Made, Foreign- Purchased Automobile D D ,'A i..; stry 1. We have again reviewed the - claim in response to your question of whether you have the legal authority to waive the applicable 25X9 Agency regulation in this case, HR - In doing so, we had occasion 25X1A to seek out some additional facts and have a conversation with regarding his claim. 2. As you know, the so-called congressional prohibition on the shipment of foreign-made, foreign-purchased POVs derives from House Report No. 92-1567, 10 October 1972, as an expression of congressional intent concerning the shipment by Government officers and employees of foreign-made, foreign-purchased automobiles. As we have advised before, the language of the Conference Report does not have the force of law and accordingly, you have the legal authority to waive the Agency regulation if you wish to do so. However, the additional facts discovered cause me to be even more certain that the previous OGC and DDA positions on this matter are correct. 3. We advised that the vehicle purchased by was not only foreign-made but foreign-purchased and this determination is not, I believe, "overly technical." By law, under the Uniform Commercial Code there was no sale until the specific car was identified to the contract. Additionally, though not previously considered, it was a foreign purchase under applicable tax law. If this purchase had been a domestic purchase, the dealer was obligated to charge and was obligated to pay, an excise tax on the vehicle which at the time was 10% of the purchase price. Because this was a foreign purchase, no excise tax was charged or paid as evidenced by the contract (copy attached) and by a statement from to me. Further, no duty was paid on the car. as would have been the case if it had been a domestic :purchase. Similar purchase plans -- order in the U.S. and pick up in Europe -- have been examined in depth by IRS. Some plans E2 IMPDET Approved For Rele e.2094 8(.2.7iXCDP79OO49B&ORa7OOt%8l-7 Approved For Release (CONE/ 4a1 II ).79-00498A000700150001-7 have been found to be domestic purchases, others foreign purchases. Ordering the car in the United States, accepting delivery of it in Europe, and then keeping it in Europe for personal use for a period of time has been found to be a foreign purchase and not subject to the U.S. excise tax. In fact this excise tax saving of about $200 plus the exemption from duty offsets in large part the cost of shipping which would have been paid had the car been a domestic purchase. memoranda that he could not have shipped his car before the deadline even if he had been fully aware of all the facts because he would have been without 25X1A a car for the next eighteen months. In addition, a recently discovered dispatch shows that was told over three months in advance of his PCS ship- ment, 28 June 1974, that he would not be permitted to ship his vehicle at 25X1A Government expense (see a copy o 11 April 1974; pseudonym is the one that begins 5. In conclusion, situation was no different than that of any Government civilian employee serving overseas. He owned a foreign- made, foreign-purchased automobile which he was told he could not ship at Government expense. If you choose to waive the. regulation, you have the legal authority to do so. Approved For Release 2001> FEENT1A40498A000700150001-7