U.S. Code » Title 39 » Part PART III— MODERNIZATION AND FISCAL ADMINISTRATION › Chapter CHAPTER 20— FINANCE

39 U.S.C. § 2008

Audit and expenditures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 39 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The accounts and operations of the Postal Service shall be audited by the Comptroller General and reports thereon made to the Congress to the extent and at such times as he may determine.(b) The Postal Service shall maintain an adequate internal audit of the financial transactions of the Postal Service.(c) Subject only to the provisions of this chapter, the Postal Service is authorized to make such expenditures and to enter into such contracts, agreements, and arrangements, upon such terms and conditions and in such manner as it deems necessary, including the final settlement of all claims and litigation by or against the Postal Service.(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as denying to the Postal Service the power to obtain audits of the accounts of the Postal Service and reports concerning its financial condition and operations by certified public accounting firms. Such audits and reports shall be in addition to those required by this section.(e) At least once each year beginning with the fiscal year commencing after June 30, 1971, the Postal Service shall obtain a certification from an independent, certified public accounting firm of the accuracy of any financial statements of the Postal Service used in determining and establishing postal rates.(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 741.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1973–1993 · leading case: Mail Order Ass'n of Am. v. United States Postal Serv., No. 91-1058, 986 F.2d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mail Order Ass'n of Am. v. United States Postal Serv., No. 91-1058, 986 F.2d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Department appealed the trial judge’s determination that 39 U.S.C. § 2008 (c) 7 gave the Postal Service authority to settle litigation and claims without the Department’s consent.”
United Parcel Serv., Inc., a New York Corp., & United Parcel Serv., Inc., & Ohio Corp. v. United States Postal Serv., 604 F.2d 1370 (3rd Cir. 1979). “While perhaps a simple theory, it was anticipated that implementation of this mandate would be difficult because, under the accounting system used by the Post Office Department, costs could not readily be attributed to a particular class of mail. President’s Commission, supra,…”
Butz Eng'g Corp. v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 561 (Ct. Cl. 1974). “United States Postal Service, supra, that the settlement articles demonstrate Congressional intent to create a Postal Service independent of the Executive Branch, constitutes dictmn since that case required only a construction of the plain meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 2008 (c).…”
John J. Leonard v. United States Postal Serv., Appeal of United States of Am., 489 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1974). · cites it 3× “The court found authority in 39 U.S.C. § 2008 (c) for settlement of litigation and claims by the Postal Service without interference by the Department of Justice.”
Friedlander v. United States Postal Serv., 658 F. Supp. 95 (D.D.C. 1987). “1974) (relying on 39 U.S.C. § 2008 (c) to grant to USPS authority over settlement of claims).”
Settlement of Litig. in Which the U.S. Postal Serv. Is Represented by the Dep't of Just. (OLC 1979). · cites it 4× “The issues underlying your inquiry and our 1973 memorandum are, first, whether 39 U.S.C. § 2008 (c) gives the Postal Service final settlement 1 39 U.”
Leonard v. United States Postal Serv., 360 F. Supp. 449 (D. Mass. 1973). “And then decisively, as far as this case is concerned, 39 U.S.C. § 2008 (c) clearly places in the control of the Postal Service its determinative ability to compromise its litigation.”
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.