January 29, 1977

Conflict of Interest—Propriety of Using a Leased

Airplane for Personal and Official Purposes

You have asked whether there would be any conflict of interest or 

other legal problem if an executive branch official leased an airplane at 

his own expense and for his own use as the need arises.

There would appear to be no conflict of interest or other legal 

problem whatever in the use of a leased airplane for purely personal 

reasons. The conflict-of-interest statutes applicable to officers and employees of the executive branch, 18 U.S.C. §§201 et seq., and the 

Standards of Conduct regulations covering officers and employees of 

the agency involved, contain no express or implied prohibition against 

using a leased airplane for private purposes, and we can see no reason 

why there would be even an appearance of impropriety in the official’s 

doing so. Using a private airplane for personal use is no different from 

using a private automobile in the same way—whether the vehicle in 

question is leased or owned outright.

The conflict-of-interest statutes and the Standards of Conduct for the 

agency involved do not prohibit the use of a leased or privately owned 

airplane or other vehicle for travel on official business. Indeed, Parts 1- 

4.2 and 1-4.3 of the Federal Travel Regulations specifically provide 

that a Government employee may be reimbursed for the use of a 

privately owned airplane for official business, rather than commercial 

transportation, where such use is determined to be “advantageous to 

the Government” or where it is “an authorized or approved exercise of 

the employee’s preference.” Similarly, Part 1-3.2 of the Federal Travel 

Regulations permits an employee to rent an airplane for official travel if 

it has been authorized or approved as being “advantageous to the 

Government.” We have been informed by the Office of the General 

Counsel of the General Accounting Office that use for official purposes 

of a vehicle that an employee has leased on a long-term basis for 

personal as well as Government use would be covered by Parts 1-4.2

77-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

8
and 1-4.3 of the Federal Travel Regulations, discussed above, which 

govern reimbursement for use of a privately owned airplane.

When it is determined that the use of a privately owned airplane is 

advantageous to the Government, an employee is entitled to reimbursement at the mileage rate fixed by the agency that will be adequate to 

compensate its employees for necessary expenses, up to a maximum of 

12 cents per mile. Federal Travel Regulations, Part 1-4.2. If the employee uses a private airplane as an authorized or approved exercise of 

his preference in lieu of common carrier transportation, reimbursement 

is calculated according to the same formula, with the added restriction 

that the mileage payment may not exceed the constructive cost of 

coach accommodations for the same trip by commercial carrier. Federal Travel Regulations, Part 1-4.3.

The only legal issue that might arise in using a leased airplane for 

official business (other than the requirement that it be “advantageous to 

the Government” or “an authorized or approved exercise of the employee’s preference”) is whether the official involved would be required to seek reimbursement from the Government for his expenses. 

The Comptroller General has ruled that unless an agency has statutory 

authority to accept gifts (which the agency apparently does not have), 

neither the agency nor its employees may accept payment or reimbursement from private sources for expenses incurred while on official business. 46 Comp. Gen. 689 (1967). This restriction is embodied in the 

Standards of Conduct of the agency. The theory of this prohibition is 

that acceptance of payment or reimbursement of travel expenses from 

private sources constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency’s appropriations that are available for official travel. The Comptroller General’s decision and the agency’s regulation do not deal with the 

question whether an employee is prohibited from paying his own travel 

expenses, but the rationale of preventing unauthorized augmentation of 

appropriations may well apply in this situation as well—especially 

where the employee expects to use his own vehicle for official business 

on a number of occasions. This would seem to be, however, a matter 

for the Comptroller General rather than for the Attorney General.

We should also point out that the Comptroller General has ruled that 

a top-level Government officer is regarded as being on official business 

for purposes of the prohibition against reimbursement from private 

sources whenever the activity is “reasonably related to his office.” 46 

Comp. Gen. 689 (1967).

E d w i n S. K n e e d l e r

A ttorney-Adviser

Office o f Legal Counsel

9