GAB Decision 784
September 2, 1986
New York State Department of Social Services;
Docket No. 86-101
Ballard, Judith A.; Settle, Norval D. Teitz, Alexander G.
(1) The New York State Department of Social Services (State) appealed
a decision of the Office of Family Assistance, Family Support
Administration, disallowing $601,925 claimed under title IV-A of the
Social Security Act. The disallowance was taken by the Agency on the
ground that the State's claims were not filed within the applicable time
limits imposed by Pub. L. 96-272 and the implementing regulations. *
All but $536 of the costs claimed represented amounts originally paid
under the State-funded Home Relief program to individuals whom the State
later determined were eligible for title IV-A payments. The remaining
$536 represented State and local training costs paid by the State which
the State also reclassified as expenditures for which federal financial
participation (FFP) was available under title IV-A. The State asserted
that the claims were timely filed, arguing that the expenditures were
not made until the State recognized that they were eligible for FFP.
The State also argued that the claims fell within the statutory
exception to the time limits for "audit exceptions, or adjustments to
prior year costs." The State noted, however, that the Board had rejected
similar arguments in New York State Department of Social Services,
Decision No. 521, March 6, 1984, and requested that the Board issue a
summary decision based upon its holding in Decision No. 521. The Agency
stated that it had no objection to the issuance of such a summary
decision.
In Decision No. 521, the Board held that merely having a State
audit
which showed that the State had underclaimed was not enough to bring
the
State within the exception for(2) "audit exceptions, or adjustments
to
prior year costs." The Board also held that the reclassification
of
expenditures from non-federal participating to federal participating
did
not affect the time when the expenditures occurred. Under 45
CFR
95.13(b), the expenditures for title XIX services in question in
that
case were made when the provider was paid.
Here, the expenditures were made not for title XIX services as in
Decision
No. 521, but for assistance payments and for training under
title IV-A.
Section 95.13(a) provides that expenditures for title IV-A
assistance
payments are made "in the quarter in which a payment was made
to the
assistance recipient, (or) his or her protective payee. . . ."
Section
95.13(d) provides that expenditures under title IV-A for
training are made
"in the quarter payment was made by a State agency to
a private agency or
individual; or in the quarter to which the costs
were allocated in
accordance with the resources for each program." The
State asserted, however,
that Decision No. 521 governed here even though
title IV-A rather than title
XIX services were at issue. Since the time
of expenditure as defined by
regulation does not in either case depend
upon when the State recognized the
eligibility of the expenditure for
FFP, we agree that Decision No. 521 is
applicable here.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the disallowance in the amount
of
$601,925. //* This was part of a larger disallowance
totalling
$1,785,481. (Disallowance letter dated May 7, 1986) Of that amount,
the
State appealed only $650,605. Pursuant to its agreement with
the
parties, the Board will issue a separate decision with respect
to
$48,680 of the $650,605 which presents a different issue.