2014-惇蹋厙AT-395

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 惇蹋厙AT held that the 2009 Johnson case and the present case dealt with identical factual circumstances. 惇蹋厙AT noted that the Secretary-General contended that, following the issuance of judgment No. 2012-惇蹋厙AT-240, it was clear that he could no longer require staff members to apply their foreign tax credits to reduce tax liability. 惇蹋厙AT 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that the staff member had already used her foreign tax credit in 2010 before the Organisation changed its policy and rescinded its decision to require her to apply her foreign tax credits for her 2010 tax returns. 惇蹋厙AT ordered the Secretary-General to reimburse the staff member the staff assessment deducted from her salary and other emoluments for the year 2010. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant sought to obtain from the Organisation reimbursement of the staff assessment deducted from her salary. 惇蹋厙DT issued judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2013/052 which found that its jurisprudence in Johnson (judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2011/144), confirmed by 惇蹋厙AT, applied to the case at bar which concerned the amount of the staff assessment deducted from the Applicant＊s salary and other emoluments for 2010. 惇蹋厙DT held that for the same reasons as those set out in judgment Nos. 惇蹋厙DT/2011/144 and 2012-惇蹋厙AT-240, it was appropriate to order the Secretary-General to reimburse the staff assessment deducted from the Applicant＊s salaries and other emoluments for 2010. 惇蹋厙DT held that the amount to be reimbursed to the Applicant should be calculated by the Income Tax Unit of the 惇蹋厙 by considering that the income tax due by the Applicant to the United States Internal Revenue Service in 2010. 惇蹋厙DT held that to determine the amount to be reimbursed, the Income Tax Unit could consider eventual overpayments received by the Applicant in previous years until the previous judgment (惇蹋厙DT/2011/144) had been executed.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

Outcome

Appeal 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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

Johnson

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement