C.F.R. » Title 22 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE › SUBCHAPTER B—PERSONNEL › PART 17—OVERPAYMENTS FROM THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND UNDER THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM (FSRDS) AND THE FOREIGN SERVICE PENSION SYSTEM (FSPS)

22 C.F.R. § 17.7

Waiver precluded

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Waiver of an overpayment cannot be granted when:

(1) The overpayment was obtained by fraud; or

(2) The overpayment was made to an estate.

(b) [Reserved]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2017–2018 · leading case: Foo v. Tillerson, 244 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foo v. Tillerson, 244 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff additionally asserts that the regulation Defendants relied on for their determination, 22 C.F.R. § 17.7 (a)(2), is invalid because it is not authorized by, and conflicts with, the text of 22 U.”
Foo v. Tillerson, 288 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “§ 4047 (d) in ruling that she was ineligible for a waiver of repayment; and (3) erroneously concluded that the State Department did not act ultra vires when it promulgated 22 C.F.R. § 17.7 (a)(2). (Compl. at 19-21).”
Foo v. Kerry (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 4× “Upon consideration of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that the State Department did not act ultra vires when it promulgated 22 C.F.R. § 17.7 (a)(2), but that the FSGB erred by: (a) applying an evidentiary standard higher than the “substantial…”
— 22 C.F.R. § 17.7(a)(2) — 3 cases
Foo v. Tillerson, 244 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C. 2017). “Plaintiff additionally asserts that the regulation Defendants relied on for their determination, 22 C.F.R. § 17.7 (a)(2), is invalid because it is not authorized by, and conflicts with, the text of 22 U.”
Foo v. Kerry (D.D.C. 2018). “Upon consideration of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that the State Department did not act ultra vires when it promulgated 22 C.F.R. § 17.7 (a)(2), but that the FSGB erred by: (a) applying an evidentiary standard higher than the “substantial…”
Foo v. Tillerson, 288 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 4047 (d) in ruling that she was ineligible for a waiver of repayment; and (3) erroneously concluded that the State Department did not act ultra vires when it promulgated 22 C.F.R. § 17.7 (a)(2). (Compl. at 19-21).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.