UNDT/2023/015

UNDT/2023/015, LL

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the refusal to pay the Applicant’s taxes was lawful and that the Administration was not liable for the delay in processing of the claim.

The Applicant’s own testimony undermined his claim of extenuating circumstances. His testimony conclusively established that the Applicant did not file claims for tax reimbursement in a timely manner because he mistakenly believed that he was not required to file and pay taxes to the United States Government upon expiry of his permanent residence.His error came to light in August 2019, when the IRS placed a lien on his bank account to recover the outstanding tax arrears.

Extenuating circumstances had not been proven and the refusal to pay the Applicant’s taxes was not unlawful.

There was no basis to hold the Respondent financially liable for interest and penalties accrued through the delay. Leaving aside the issue that the Applicant did not in any way quantify the amount of interest and penalties for which he demanded compensation, the Tribunal recalled that the Respondent’s obligations regarding processing the tax returns was only subsidiary to the staff members obligation towards the IRS.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the "refusal” of the United Nations Income Tax Unit (“ITU”) to process and pay his United States of America (“USA”) federal tax liability for 2013, 2015 and 2017 based on his failure to prove that he had taken medical leave to address mental health challenges that “affected his judgment regarding his personal life.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the information circulars on payment of income taxes, the one-year deadline in staff rule 3.17(ii) may be waived if the United Nations accepts that there are extenuating circumstances, which the staff member must lay out in writing.

As noted by the Appeals Tribunal, judgments on fitness of staff members for duty, are principally left to medical professionals and are not to be determined on the basis of assessments or opinions of others, including the staff member, the managers concerned and, it may properly be added, the Tribunal.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Entity

ITU

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2022/021

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry

Nairobi

Date of Judgement