Taxation

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Johnson. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s analysis and held that the decision to deny the staff member a refund of the US income tax on her salary and emoluments was unlawful. UNAT recalled that the US grants foreign tax credits in respect of income tax paid by one of its nationals or permanent residents to another State to relieve the effects of double taxation. UNAT held that the exclusion of such credits as payment would not only contravene the principle of equality of treatment among staff members if staff members from the...

UNAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-240. UNAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. UNAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as a consequence of the UN Income Tax Unit’s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife’s income tax liability in future years. UNAT held that the staff member’s claim for a refund was not moot, as UNDT had correctly determined. UNAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General’s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the 2009 Johnson case and the present case dealt with identical factual circumstances. UNAT noted that the Secretary-General contended that, following the issuance of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-240, it was clear that he could no longer require staff members to apply their foreign tax credits to reduce tax liability. UNAT noted that the staff member had already used her foreign tax credit in 2010 before the Organisation changed its policy and rescinded its decision to require her to apply her foreign tax credits for her 2010 tax...

The Tribunal finds in favour of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2009 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her, without taking into consideration her foreign tax credit. Rules governing taxation: In the Organization, as in most national systems, only the deliberative assembly may set the amount of taxes. While the executive power is responsible for setting procedural rules applicable to the collecting of taxes, it is not for that power to take decisions which modify the amount set by the assembly. Hierarchy of the...

The UNDT found, in its earlier Judgment McCloskey UNDT/2012/199 that only the decision pertaining to the Statement of Tax Settlement for the year 2010 was receivable. Following the Tribunal’s Judgments in McCloskey UNDT/2012/199 and Johnson UNDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-UNAT-240, the Respondent no longer contests the illegality of the decision to use the Applicant’s wife’s foreign income tax credit. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor...

Before the Tribunal, following its Judgment Johnson UNDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-UNAT-240, the Respondent does not contest anymore that the Applicant by using her foreign tax credit paid as a matter of fact part of the taxes due. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2010 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her.

The Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.