Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Appellate Division
SUBJECT: Alabama Department of Human Resources
Docket No. A-97-19
Decision No. 1621
DECISION
The Alabama Department of Human Resources (Alabama)
appealed a determination by the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) disallowing $1,385,648 in
federal funding for its Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills Training Program (Title IV-F of the Social
Security Act). 1/ According to ACF, for certain
expenses of this program Alabama claimed matching federal
funds at the higher FMAP (federal medical assistance
percentage) rate (ranging from 71 to 73%) rather than at
the correct matching rate of 50%. The funds which were
disallowed represent the difference between the amount
Alabama actually received at the FMAP rate and the amount
ACF alleged Alabama should have received at the lower 50%
matching rate for these expenses throughout the relevant
time period, October 1, 1990 through September 30, 1994.
AL Ex. 5 at 2, 1, 2.
For the reasons stated below, we find that ACF properly
disallowed the funds at issue based on the applicable Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) regulations and
ACF's interpretation in its action transmittal. We
further find that ACF may not be estopped from collecting
the overpayment which occurred in this case.
Legal Authority
In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which
created a new JOBS training program. Public Law 100-485,
§ 201(b); see also Title IV-F of the Social Security Act
(Act). The purpose of the JOBS program was to assure
that needy families with children obtained the education,
training, and employment that would help them avoid long-
term welfare dependence. Section 481(a) of the Act.
Under the new program, states were to establish and
operate plans, developed in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, which would include educational activities and
job skills training, as well as readiness, development,
search, and placement activities. Section 482(d) of the
Act.
In section 403(l)(1)(A) of the Act, Congress provided
that federal funding would be made available to
supplement state expenditures for the JOBS program at the
following rates:
m the greater of a State's federal medical assistance
plan (FMAP) rate or 60% in the case of expenditures
made by a State in operating such a program, other
than for costs described below which are matched at
the 50% rate; 2/ and
m at 50% in the case of expenditures for
administrative costs made by a State in operating
such a program (other than the personnel costs for
staff employed full-time in the operation of such
program, which are allowable at the FMAP (or 60%)
rate) and the costs of transportation and other
work-related supportive services. 3/
ACF published regulations which further guide how the
costs of the JOBS program are to be split between federal
and state funding sources. 4/ Under the regulations,
federal funding is available --
(i) At the higher of the State's FMAP rate or 60
percent for: personnel costs (salaries and bene-
fits) for full-time staff working full-time in any
capacity in the JOBS program; and all direct costs
associated with providing JOBS program services to
individuals, including assessment, development of
the employability plan, case management, and JOBS
component activities.
(ii) At 50 percent for: indirect personnel costs
which are excluded from JOBS matching at the FMAP
rate (or 60%); non-personal services costs
associated with these indirect personnel costs,
including space, travel, utilities, equipment, and
supplies; the costs of such items as JOBS program
planning, monitoring, letting contracts, systems,
title IV-F fair hearing activities; and for
transportation, work-related expenses, and work-
related supportive
services . . . .
45 C.F.R. § 250.73(b) (1989). The preamble to those
regulations explained that costs eligible for matching at
the FMAP rate are -
(1) the personnel costs of full-time staff working full-
time in any capacity in the JOBS program, and (2)
all direct costs associated with providing JOBS
program services to individuals, including
assessment, development of the employability plan,
case management, and JOBS component activities.
These costs include salaries and benefits of
employees for the time and effort devoted
specifically to these activities, whether they work
on a full-time basis or not.
(Emphasis added.) According to the preamble, costs
matched at the 50% rate are --
costs associated with the general administration of the
JOBS program . . . [including] indirect personnel
costs which are excluded from JOBS matching at the
higher rate.
54 Fed. Reg.42146, 42196 (October 13, 1989) (ACF Exhibit
(Ex.) 1).
On February 15, 1990, ACF issued action transmittal JOBS-
FSA-AT-90-4 for the purpose of clarifying the way
expenditures were to be allocated between the FMAP (or
60%) rate and the 50% rate. See Alabama (AL) Ex. 10a.
In the transmittal, ACF stated that the FMAP (or 60%)
rate was available for two categories of costs:
Category I includes the personnel costs (salaries and
benefits) of all full-time staff working
exclusively, i.e., working full time, on JOBS
program functions, including administrative
functions.
Category II includes the personnel costs of other JOBS
staff directly associated with the performance of
the following JOBS activities: orientation,
assessment, development of the employability plan,
case management, the mandatory JOBS components
identified at 45 CFR 250.44, the optional JOBS
components identified at 45 CFR 250.45, and other
JOBS activities identified at 45 CFR 250.46-.48.
Also included in this category are all expenditures
made for non-personnel items, e.g., such items as
space, utilities, telephone costs, materials and
supplies, directly associated with the performance
of these activities.
Id. at 2. According to the transmittal, JOBS
expenditures available for the 50% matching rate --
are those allowable JOBS costs that are not available
for match at the FMAP rate (or 60%). Generally such
costs . . . include the costs related to the general
supervision and management of the JOBS program not
done on a full-time basis, e.g., for personnel costs
for payroll and personnel administration functions.
Also included are the personnel costs of less than
full-time staff . . . who are engaged in JOBS
activities other than the JOBS activities identified
in the regulations at sections 250.44-.48,
orientation, assessment, employability planning
development, and case management.
AL Ex. 10a at 6. The transmittal then stated that non-
personnel costs -- such as space, utilities, equipment
and supplies which are not directly associated with the
provision of JOBS activities that are available for match
at the higher rate -- are also available for match at the
50% rate. Id. The transmittal gave examples of
activities matchable at the 50% rate: part-time JOBS
staff performing general JOBS administration and clerical
activities, part-time general supervision and management
for personnel payroll and administration of the JOBS
program, and non-personnel costs (e.g. space, utilities,
equipment) which are not directly associated with
providing direct JOBS services. Id. at 3, 6.
Factual Background
The parties are in substantial agreement as to the
material facts leading up to this disallowance. In 1990,
Alabama developed a cost allocation plan for allocating
expenditures of its new JOBS program, and began operating
its JOBS program in fiscal year 1991, which began on
October 1, 1990. AL Br. at 1, 8. In July 1991,
Alabama's cost allocation plan was approved. AL Br. at
1. On many occasions from 1991 through 1995, Alabama
provided written information to ACF's regional office
which disclosed how it was actually allocating the costs
of its JOBS program. This information was provided in
the form of regular quarterly reports required by ACF and
in responses to requests by ACF for specific information
prior to and during site visits. AL Br. at 10-12; AL Ex.
2, and 6 at 2. At no time between the start of Alabama's
JOBS program in 1990 and June 1995 did ACF ever notify
Alabama that there was a question as to whether the state
was properly distributing its costs between the FMAP rate
and the 50% federal matching rate. AL Br. at 1, 13. In
fact, in a July 17, 1991 program review report following
an April 1991 site visit, ACF stated the following:
Our review determined that the State has mechanisms in
place to correctly track and claim JOBS and child
care expenditures at the correct matching rates.
The State's cost allocation plan adequately captures
administrative and program costs at the varying
percentage rates depending on the specific types of
activities being performed or the specific JOBS
component or supportive service being purchased.
AL Br. at 12-13; AL Ex. 3, at page marked "36."
In the spring of 1995, a different ACF Financial
Operations staff member was assigned by ACF to review
Alabama's JOBS program. AL Br. at 1-2. Upon reviewing
Alabama's claim for federal financial participation for
the quarter ending March 31, 1995, ACF sent a letter
dated June 15, 1995 to Alabama stating that ACF had
discovered a significant error in the way matching funds
were being claimed by the state for certain types of
personnel costs, as well as related non-personal services
costs. AL Ex. 4. The questioned costs pertained to
overhead costs for administrative, support and technical
staff which were provided to various programs, including
the JOBS program. ACF Br. at 5-6; ACF Ex. 2 at 4; AL Ex.
5 at 2. The portion of these overhead costs allocable to
the JOBS program had been claimed since FY 1991 at the
FMAP rate instead of at the 50% rate, the rate at which
ACF found the costs should have been claimed. ACF Br. at
5-6; ACF Ex. 2 at 4; AL Ex. 5 at 1-3.
The letter also stated that, while the amount which
Alabama had been overpaid as a result of this alleged
error was undoubtedly substantial, ACF agreed with
Alabama's Acting Fiscal Director that requiring the state
to go back and recalculate the amount of the overpayment
would be very burdensome to Alabama. AL Ex. 4 at 3.
Thus, "in the interest of fairness to the State for our
not having brought this problem to its attention
earlier," ACF requested that Alabama go back only to the
beginning of FY 1995 (i.e., beginning October 1, 1994)
and calculate the overpayment, make an adjustment for
this overpayment on its quarterly financial report for
the JOBS program for the quarter ending June 30, 1995,
and change its cost allocation system so that all
indirect state, regional and local management, general
supervisory and clerical personnel costs and their
related non-personal services costs would be claimed
prospectively at only the 50% rate. Id. It is
undisputed that these adjustments were made, resulting in
Alabama "paying back" $289,904 for the period beginning
with FY 1995. AL Ex. 7 at 3; ACF Ex. 2 at 4; AL Br. at
3; ACF Br. at 2.
On September 10, 1995, notwithstanding ACF's June 15,
1995 letter regarding the FY 1991-1994 overpayments, ACF
wrote another letter to Alabama (following telephone and
in-person discussions) in which it stated:
Notwithstanding [the prior] attempt at conciliation on
the part of the Regional Office, it was subsequently
brought to our attention that a compromise of this
nature was beyond the scope of our authority.
AL Ex. 5 at 1. ACF then outlined the manner in which
Alabama should repay the overpayment which covered FYs
1991-1994. 5/
In a letter dated October 10, 1995, Alabama protested
repayment of the funds on the grounds that ACF never
questioned Alabama's allocation of costs for the JOBS
program during the years at issue even though it had
regular access to the data showing how those funds were
actually being allocated. AL Ex. 6 at 1-2. Alabama also
protested what it characterized as ACF's retroactive
application of a new interpretation of 45 C.F.R. §
250.73(b). Id. at 2. ACF sent Alabama a letter dated
November 27, 1995 formally stating its intent to disallow
federal funding in the amount of $1,385,684 covering the
period of October 1, 1990 through September 30, 1994. AL
Ex. 7. Alabama appealed to the Assistant Secretary for
ACF, who upheld ACF's decision to disallow the funds on
September 30, 1996. AL Exs. 8, 11. Alabama argued that
it relied on the availability and assurances of ACF as to
the federal funding it would receive throughout each of
these years in planning its JOBS budget for the following
years, and that it would be devastating to Alabama's JOBS
program in the current year to repay the questioned
costs. AL Ex. 9. This appeal to the Board followed.
ANALYSIS
I. Alabama was not entitled to claim federal funding
for the costs at issue at the higher FMAP rate under
the applicable regulation and its interpretation in
the action transmittal.
ACF's September 10, 1995 letter requesting repayment of
the questioned costs for FYs 1991-1994 described the
costs at issue as "[a]ll indirect costs of
administrative, support, and technical staff of your
department which were allocated to the JOBS program and
claimed at the FMAP rate" and "all indirect costs which
appear in reporting category 9302 . . . unless any
portions of these allocated costs represent costs of case
management staff who work directly with JOBS program
participants." AL Ex. 5 at 2. 6/ ACF further
characterized the disallowed costs as "overhead,"
consisting of personnel costs, planning costs, and
payroll costs for services provided to various programs,
including the JOBS program, as well as their related non-
personal services costs. ACF Br. at 6; see also ACF Ex.
2 at 4. ACF also referred to the costs as "pure indirect
costs of state and county office administrative, support
and technical staff who do not perform JOBS functions,"
and those "not directly associated with providing JOBS
services to individuals." ACF Br. at 14. Alabama has
not disputed ACF's characterization of the costs at
issue. Thus, the Board can reasonably conclude that the
disallowed costs consist of the costs for state and local
administrative and support personnel who are not directly
providing JOBS services to the public, but who are
providing overhead support to various programs including
the JOBS program, as well as non-personal services costs
(e.g., space, rent, utilities, equipment) associated with
these employees.
In taking this disallowance, ACF relied primarily on 45
C.F.R. § 250.73(b). 7/ Section 250.73(b), and action
transmittal JOBS-FSA-AT-90-4, which provides further
guidance on the regulation, are clear: federal funding
under the JOBS program for costs of personnel who do not
work either full-time on the JOBS program (either
providing services or in an administrative capacity) or
part-time providing direct JOBS services to individuals
may be claimed at only the 50% rate. Both clearly state
that federal funding is available at the FMAP rate for
staff working full-time (or exclusively) in the JOBS
program, including administrative personnel. Federal
funding is also available at the FMAP rate for the direct
costs of those working less than full-time in the JOBS
program but who are providing JOBS services directly to
individuals, such as assessment, development of the
employability plan, case management, and JOBS component
activities. The action transmittal also explains that
the FMAP rate may be claimed for non-personnel items,
e.g., such items as space, utilities, etc., that are
directly associated with performance of activities funded
at the FMAP rate. All other personnel costs, including
those for state and local administrative and support
staff who are not performing JOBS-related services full-
time, and their associated non-personal services costs,
are to be matched at the lower 50% rate. Thus, the costs
in question here are clearly reimbursable only at the 50%
rate.
Alabama took the position, however, that the regulations
and transmittal did not clearly establish that Alabama
was precluded from charging the costs in question at the
FMAP rate. AL Br. at 8-10. In support of this
contention, Alabama submitted a sworn statement from its
accountant, attesting to her interpretation of the
regulation and transmittal. She asserted that the
regulation and transmittal were unclear because the lists
of activities in the two provisions were not identical;
thus, she concluded, ACF "had not given the regulation a
strict interpretation." AL Ex. 10 at 2. Moreover, she
asserted, it was not clear from the transmittal whether
the type of personnel costs at issue were matchable at
the FMAP rate or the 50% rate. She stated that the
transmittal was confusing because it stated that "many
overhead and indirect costs are generally assigned to a
cost pool from which costs are allocated to different
programs" and that for the JOBS program, many of these
costs were eligible for matching at the FMAP rate. Id.
at 2.
We find that her interpretation of these provisions was
not reasonable. It is clear from reading the regulation,
its preamble, and the transmittal either separately or
together that costs for administrative personnel working
less than full-time in the JOBS program are available for
federal funding at only the 50% level. As ACF pointed
out, the action transmittal is consistent with the
regulation and merely provides more detailed examples of
what is allowable at each rate. Under either provision,
the costs at issue are allowable at only the 50% matching
rate. ACF Br. at 15. Moreover, the provision in the
transmittal on which the accountant relied specifically
states that the state may need to extract from a cost
pool the costs which are matchable at the FMAP rate from
those matchable at the 50% rate, in order to claim the
allowable portion at the higher FMAP rate. AL Ex. 10a at
9. Here, Alabama failed to do this and instead allocated
to a category reimbursed at the FMAP rate part of a cost
pool that included types of costs clearly not
reimbursable at that rate. 8/
II. The Board has no authority to estop ACF from
requiring repayment of the disallowed funds.
A second issue in this case is whether ACF may be
estopped from requiring repayment of the erroneously
claimed funds. Alabama argued that ACF should be
estopped because it is retroactively applying a change in
interpretation of 42 C.F.R. § 250.73(b) and because it is
denying the validity of the agreement reached by the
parties as a result of ACF's June 15, 1995 letter.
First, we see no evidence that ACF has retroactively
applied a change in interpretation of section 250.73(b).
The preamble to the regulation, as well as action
transmittal FSA-JOBS-AT-90-4 (issued prior to the period
at issue here), are fully consistent with the language of
section 250.73(b). Alabama has presented no evidence of
a regulation, guideline or formal policy statement issued
by ACF which would show a different interpretation of how
part-time administrative personnel overhead costs are to
be allocated under the JOBS program other than at the 50%
rate. Alabama's argument, in essence, is that ACF's
failure to identify an error in Alabama's allocation of
personnel costs and its later identification and
correction of that error is equivalent to a retroactive
change in interpretation of a regulation. Alabama cites
to no authority supporting its position, and in our view
it is clear that a retroactive cost adjustment is not
equivalent to a retroactively-applied change in the
interpretation of a provision. Moreover, Alabama did not
point to any language in its cost allocation plan that
clearly indicated that the state was going to charge
these costs at the FMAP rate. In fact, ACF asserted that
Alabama did not properly implement its cost allocation
plan, and Alabama did not reply to this allegation. AL
Ex. 7 at 2, 11 at 2.
Alabama also argued that ACF should be estopped from
seeking collection of the funds at issue on the grounds
that Alabama entered into a settlement with ACF which ACF
later repudiated. AL Br. at 4-7. Alabama contended
that, since it had fulfilled its part of the agreement by
calculating and repaying the FY 1995 funds, ACF should be
obliged to fulfill its part of the agreement, i.e., not
seek repayment of the prior years' funds.
In order for estoppel to lie against a party, the
following elements must be met: (1) the party against
whom estoppel is sought must have misrepresented the
facts; (2) the party asserting estoppel must have
reasonably relied on those facts; and (3) the reliance
must have resulted in some harm or detriment to the party
asserting estoppel. Heckler v. Community Health
Services, 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1984); see also North Central
West Virginia Community Action Assoc., DAB No. 1604 at 8
(1996); Washington State Dept. of Social and Health
Services, DAB No. 1561 at 10 (1996). We do not find
these grounds for estoppel are met here, as there is no
evidence that Alabama, after repaying the questioned
costs for FY 1995, took any actions than it otherwise
would have taken (e.g., relied to its detriment) based on
the repayment agreement. Alabama's repayment of the
questioned costs for FY 1995 fulfilled an obligation to
repay to the United States Treasury funds which it had
claimed in excess of those permitted by applicable law;
it did not confer a "benefit of the bargain" on ACF.
Moreover, to the extent that Alabama argued that ACF
misrepresented the facts prior to the repayment
agreement, we find that this argument has no merit.
Alabama was aware that there might be a problem with its
interpretation of the regulation and transmittal when it
set up its cost allocation program. In her affidavit,
Alabama's accountant stated that, at the time she
developed the cost allocation plan --
[i]t was not clear from [the transmittal] whether such
personnel costs were matchable at the 50 percent
rate or the higher FMAP rate. Therefore, [Alabama's
Department of Human Resources] decided to allocate
the costs to the higher rate and await the
interpretation of 45 C.F.R. Section 250.73 by the
ACF Regional Office after their scheduled review of
[Alabama's] JOBS program in April 1991.
AL Ex. 10 at 2. If Alabama had any question as to the
proper interpretation of the regulations and guidelines,
it was incumbent on Alabama to ask ACF for clarification.
See, e.g., California Dept. of Health Services, DAB No.
1472 at 7 (1994); Illinois Dept. of Public Aid, DAB No.
667 at 8 (1985). However, Alabama has not asserted that
it ever specifically asked ACF how to allocate these
costs or whether its decision to charge all of the costs
at the higher FMAP rate was proper. 9/ Moreover, a
federal granting agency's failure to question costs at an
earlier date does not constitute a determination that the
costs are allowable. Cf. Texas Office of the Governor,
DAB No. 1608 at 14 (1997) (an agency's failure to
disallow costs previously made to the same pension fund,
where such costs were unallowable for substantially
similar reasons, is not a bar to upholding the current
disallowance).
In any event, the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of
estoppel against the government in several cases and its
position is clear: when federal funds are at issue,
there can be no estoppel against the government. 10/
Thus, the Board has no authority to estop ACF from
requiring repayment of the federal funds obtained by
Alabama due to its faulty application of federal law.
Finally, Alabama has not cited any authority for ACF or
the Board to waive Alabama's repayment obligation, and we
know of none.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that ACF
properly disallowed $1,385,648 in federal funding for FYs
1991 through 1995.
__________________________
Judith A. Ballard
__________________________
Cecilia Sparks Ford
__________________________
M. Terry Johnson
Presiding Board Member
* * * Footnotes * * *
1. The total amount of the alleged overpayment for fiscal
year (FY) 1991 (beginning October 1, 1990) through March 31, 1995
(the second quarter of FY 1995) is $1,675,552. The disallowance
letter from ACF, dated November 27, 1995, expresses an intent to
disallow only $1,385,648, which is the portion of the overpayment
for FYs 1991 through 1994 (ending September 30, 1994). Alabama
Exhibit (AL Ex.) 7. The November 27, 1995 letter does not
include the alleged overpayment for the first two quarters of FY
1995 (October 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995) because Alabama repaid
$289,904 in July 1995 to cover the FY 1995 overpayment (see later
discussion). See, generally, AL Ex. 7 at 3; ACF Ex. 2 at 4; AL
Br. at 3; ACF Br. at 2. Because the $289,904 was not included in
the actual disallowance, it is technically not before us now.
2. Throughout the relevant time period, Alabama's FMAP
rate ranged between 71-73%. AL Ex. 7, Enc. 3. Thus, this amount
was always applied by Alabama to these costs rather than the 60%
rate.
3. Under other provisions of the statute, as well as
under the regulations, federal funding was available at a 90%
matching rate for certain costs. However, those costs are not at
issue nor are they discussed here.
4. These regulations, as well as the action transmittal
discussed in the following paragraph, were actually published by
the Family Support Administration, the predecessor agency to ACF.
Because the distinction is unimportant, we refer to all actions
of either agency in this decision as those of ACF.
5. In the September 10, 1995 letter, the Regional
Administrator stated, "We deeply apologize for the misinformation
which we provided to you regarding this matter in our letter of
June 15. We also apologize for not recognizing these
inappropriate costs and bringing the matter to the State's
attention earlier." Id. at 3.
6. Category 9302 is listed as "Title IV-F JOBS 72.73%
Federal." AL Ex. 10c at 10 (unnumbered).
7. In its June 15, 1995 letter, ACF also relied on what
it referred to as the Regional Administrator's Memorandum No. RA
90-13, dated January 17, 1990:
Indirect costs allocated to the JOBS program under an
approved cost allocation plan are not matchable at the FMAP
rate but rather at the 50 percent rate. Examples of these
costs are local clerical staff, local supervisors and
administrators not directly responsible for providing or
overseeing JOBS activities or JOBS staff, district
(regional) office administrative personnel and State central
office administrative, support and technical staff including
but not limited to accounting staff, data processing staff,
hearing officers, planners, commissioners and division
directors (other than those assigned full-time to JOBS).
AL Ex. 4 at 1-2. However, neither party addressed this provision
or provided a copy of it on appeal.
8. ACF disallowed only the difference between the FMAP
and 50% rates for the portion of costs that was not eligible for
match at the higher rate. AL Ex. 5 at 2, 1, 2.
9. Alabama asserted that it relied on ACF's approval of
its cost allocation plan and budgeted its JOBS program according
to ACF's assurances of federal funding. However, ACF has also
questioned whether Alabama was properly implementing its cost
allocation plan. AL Exs. 7 at 2, 11 at 2.
10. The most recent case addressing this matter involved
erroneous advice given to a disability benefits claimant by a
government employee which caused the claimant, who clearly relied
on that advice, to lose his eligibility for disability benefits.
Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990).
The claimant sought to estop the government from denying him
benefits, even though it was undisputed that he was then
ineligible for benefits under the statute.
The Supreme Court held that payments of money from the Federal
Treasury were limited to those authorized by statute and that to
allow payments in violation of a statute, such as to this
claimant, would be a violation of the Appropriations Clause. 496
U.S. at 416, 424. The purpose of the Appropriations Clause,
which provides that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
but in consequence of appropriations made by law," is to assure
that public funds will be spent "according to the letter of the
difficult judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and
not according to the individual favor of Government agents or the
individual pleas of litigants." 496 U.S. at 428; citing U.S.
Constitution, art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Court went on to say that
to allow estoppel based on a misstatement of a government
employee would give government fiscal officers a most dangerous
discretion: they could ignore the requirements of congressional
enactments and implement programs according to whim. 496 U.S. at
425. The Court concluded:
Whether there are any extreme circumstances that might
support estoppel in a case not involving payment from the
Treasury is a matter we need not address. As for monetary
claims, it is enough to say that this Court has never upheld
an assertion of estoppel against the government by a
claimant seeking public funds. In this context there can be
no estoppel, for courts cannot estop the Constitution.
496 U.S. at 434. The Court stated that the appropriate remedy
could only be obtained from Congress, perhaps in the form of a
private relief bill.
The Richmond case cited with approval some earlier decisions,
including a case which held that there is likewise no estoppel
against the government when one is seeking to recover federal
funds in violation of a duly promulgated regulation (rather than
a statute): "not even the temptations of a hard case will
provide a basis for ordering recovery contrary to the terms of
the regulation, for to do so would disregard the duty of all
courts to observe the conditions defined by Congress for charging
the public treasury." 496 U.S. at 420; citing Federal Crop
Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 385-386 (1947).
Under these cases, it is clear that the Board has no authority to
estop ACF from requiring reimbursement of the overpayment. There
can be no estoppel against the government where the result would
be to allow an entity to receive (or, in this case, retain) funds
which properly belong in the U.S. Treasury because the use to
which they are or have been put violates a statute or regulation.
(..continued)