UNDT/2023/015, LL

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the refusal to pay the Applicantstaxes was lawfuland that the Administration was not liable for the delay in processingof the claim.

The Applicant’s own testimony undermined his claim of extenuatingcircumstances.Histestimony conclusively established thatthe Applicantdid not fileclaims for tax reimbursement in a timely manner because he mistakenly believed that he was not requiredto file and pay taxes to the United StatesGovernment uponexpiry of his permanent residence.His error came to light in August 2019, when the IRS placed alienon his bank account to recover the outstanding tax arrears.

Extenuating circumstanceshadnotbeen provenand therefusal to pay the Applicant’s taxeswas not unlawful.

There was no basis to hold theRespondent financiallyliableforinterest and penalties accrued throughthe delay.Leaving aside the issue that the Applicant did notin any wayquantifythe amount of interest and penaltiesfor which hedemanded compensation,the Tribunal recalled that the Respondent’sobligationsregarding processing the tax returns was only subsidiary to thestaff members obligationtowards the IRS.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicantcontestedthe "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 deadlineinstaff rule 3.17(ii)may bewaived if the United Nations accepts that there are extenuating circumstances,whichthe staff member must lay out in writing.

Asnoted by the Appeals Tribunal,judgments on fitness of staff membersfor duty, are principally left to medical professionals and are notto be determined on the basis of assessments or opinions of others, including thestaffmember, 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.

Applicants/ Appellants
LL
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type