45 C.F.R. § 233.27

Supplemental payments under retrospective budgeting

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

(a) General requirements. A State plan which provides for payments between 25 and 45 days from the close of a budget month, shall provide for supplemental payments to eligible recipients who request them. A State plan which provides for payments within 25 days may provide for supplemental payments:

(1) The supplemental payment shall be paid for the month in which it was requested.

(2) The recipient family is eligible for a supplemental payment if its income for the month is less than 80 percent of the amount the State would pay for a similar family with no income. However, this percentage of the amount the State would pay for a similar family with no income may be set between 80 and 100 percent, as specified in the State plan. The supplemental payment equals the difference between the family's income in the payment month and that percentage.

(3) Supplemental payments shall be issued within 5 working days of request.

(b) How income is treated. For purposes of supplemental payments, income includes that month's assistance payment and any income received or expected to be received by the recipient, but does not include work-related expenses.

(1) The amount used for the assistance payment shall be the monthly assistance payment without regard to any recoupments made for prior overpayments or adjustments for prior underpayments.

(2) The agency may include as income cash in hand or available in bank accounts. It may also include as income any cash disregarded in determining need or the amount of the assistance payment, but not cash payments that are disregarded by § 233.20(a)(4)(ii), paragraphs (c) on relocation assistance, (d) on educational grants or loans and (g) on payments for certain services.

[44 FR 26083, May 4, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 9205, Mar. 18, 1986]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1980–1980 · leading case: Garcia v. Woods, 103 Cal. App. 3d 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Garcia v. Woods, 103 Cal. App. 3d 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 8× “( 45 C.F.R. § 233.27 .) 13 The regulations require states which use a “retrospective” (i.”

Eagle Elk v. Westby, 288 N.W.2d 317 (S.D. 1980). “45 CFR § 233.27 (1) and (3). Thus, it appears that the new regulations approve the PMB system implemented by South Dakota’s Department, which pays within the first few days of the second month following the close of the budget month, a time span of approximately 34-35 days.”

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.