top of page
  • Writer's pictureR.D. Lieberman,Consultant

When Does a Claim Accrue When There is an Administrative Appeal?

When does a claim accrue for a tax or duty imposed after award by a foreign government? And what happens if the contractor appeals the tax or duty? Does accrual occur when the tax or duty was first imposed, or after the administrative appeal is resolved. The answer is in Triple Canopy, Inc. v. Sec’y of the Air Force, No. 2020-2165, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2021).


Triple Canopy was a private security company that had six U.S. contracts for security services in Afghanistan. The contracts were fixed price and all required Triple Canopy to comply with local law, and incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 52.229-6, Taxes-Foreign Fixed Price Contracts (the “Foreign Tax Clause), which stated:


[T]he contract price shall be increased by the amount of any after-imposed tax or of any tax or duty specifically excluded from the contract price by a provision of this contract that the Contractor is required to pay or bear, including any interest or penalty, if the Contractor states in writing that the contract price does not include any contingency for such tax and if liability for such tax, interest, or penalty was not incurred through the Contractor’s fault, negligence, or failure to follow instructions of the Contracting Officer or to comply with the provisions of paragraph (i) below.

. . . .

The Contractor shall take all reasonable action to obtain exemption from or refund of any taxes or duties, including interest or penalty, from which the United States Government, the Contractor, any subcontractor, or the transactions or property covered by this contract are exempt under the laws of the country concerned or its political subdivisions or which the governments of the United States and of the country concerned have agreed shall not be applicable to expenditures in such country by or on behalf of the United States.

FAR 52.229-6(d)(1), -6(i)


In February 2008, the Afghan government issued a directive limiting the number of personnel in each Security company to 500. On August 13, 2010, the Air Force contracting officer sent a letter to the Afghan government requesting an exemption from the 500 person limit. On March 15, 2011, the Afghan government imposed a sum for each person over the 500 person cap, and on March 24, 2011, the Afghan government assessed Triple Canopy a penalty of $879,648. (The parties agreed that this penalty was subject to the Foreign Tax clause). However, the Afghan government informed Triple Canopy that it could object to the assessment and provide its reasoning in writing within two weeks. Triple Canopy formally appealed the Assessment on April 8, 2011, and on April 21, 2011, informed its contracting officer that it would submit a request for equitable adjustment if its appeal of the assessment was denied. On July 6, 2011, the Afghan government sent a letter to Triple Canopy adjusting the total penalty downward to $430,995, and soon thereafter, Triple Canopy paid the assessment. On June 6, 2017, within six years of the revised assessment and the payment, Triple Canopy submitted claims on all six contracts for reimbursement under the Foreign Tax clause. The contracting officer and the Armed Services Board denied the claims, asserting that the claims had not been submitted to the contracting officer within six years of the date they accrued (as required by the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”)), but rather had accrued earlier, when the Afghan Government first assessed them (March 24, 2011), more than six years before the claims were submitted.


The Court sated that “when a CDA claim accrued is determined in accordance with the FAR, the conditions of the contract, and the facts of the particular case.” The Court held that these considerations compelled the conclusion that Triple Canopy’s claim did not accrue until its appeal of the Afghan government assessments was resolved on July 6, 2011. Triple Canopy was required to “take all reasonable action” to obtain exemption from the assessment according to paragraph (i) of the Foreign Tax assessment—and this included making the appeal to Afghanistan. Therefore, the accrual date was July 6, 2011 and Triple Canopy’s claim was within the 6 year statute of limitations.


Takeaway. Where a contractor takes all reasonable action to obtain exemption from an after award tax or fee, this includes appealing the assessment if possible. The statute of limitations on any claim will not begin until the appeal is settled.


For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes

5 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Asserting Duress in Signing a Modification

Sand Point Services, LLC brought two claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, both involving modifications.  Sand Point Servs., LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61819, 61820, January 4, 2024.  The f

Requirements Contracts: Words of Exclusivity

The Federal Circuit recently clarified that an agency’s contract may still contain requisite language to make it a requirements contract, even if the contract does not include the required Federal Acq

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page