## ORDER No. 2022-1 — Mr. “LL”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Request for Interpretation of Judgment No. 2019-1)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ORDER No. 2022-1 — Mr. “LL”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Request for Interpretation of Judgment No. 2019-1)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1.pdf.json)

---

### Background
- Applicant was injured in the course of his employment with the Fund, resulting in a career-ending disability.
- In Mr. “LL”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2019-1 (April 5, 2019), the Tribunal:
  - sustained Applicant’s principal claim that the Administration Committee of the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) erred when it replaced Applicant’s early retirement pension with a disability pension and “coordinated” that pension with his workers’ compensation annuity in a particular manner;
  - concluded those decisions misinterpreted and misapplied SRP Section 10.5;
  - rescinded the contested decisions of the SRP Administration Committee;
  - ordered measures to “correct the effects” (Statute, Article XIV, Section 1) so that, going forward, Applicant would be paid:
    - an early retirement pension (SRP Section 4.2), retroactive to the date of his eligibility for such pension, paid solely by the SRP Retirement Fund; and
    - a separate workers’ compensation annuity (GAO No. 20) retroactive to the date of his separation from the Fund, paid solely by the IMF;
  - ordered that the Fund pay Applicant interest on past due payments associated with restoring retroactively Applicant’s entitlements under the Fund’s internal law.

### Applicant’s Request for Interpretation of Judgment
- Key procedural chronology:
  - Applicant filed a Request for Interpretation of Judgment on June 2, 2021 (supplemented June 4, 2021).
  - Respondent filed its Answer on August 5, 2021 (supplemented and revised August 13, 2021).
  - Applicant requested and was granted leave to file a Reply (filed August 31, 2021; leave granted September 13, 2021).
  - Respondent filed a Rejoinder on September 30, 2021.
  - Applicant filed a Request for Costs on April 5, 2022; Respondent filed its Response on April 14, 2022.
- Substance of Applicant’s Request:
  - Applicant does not dispute that the Fund implemented the Judgment’s orders and has filed reports of the payments with national tax authorities.
  - Applicant contests the representations made by the Fund in those reports regarding the taxability of various payments.
  - Applicant asks the Tribunal to “. . . issue a formal interpretation of Mr. ‘LL’ that instructs the Fund not to take any position, or make any entry, on the 1099R [tax form] regarding the taxability of his Fund income.”
  - Applicant also asks the Tribunal to:
    - reopen the Judgment to allow him to present a request for reimbursement of all pre-2020 tax owed;
    - award compensation for “stress and other psychological harm that he has sustained as a result of the Fund’s taking of sides against him on the 1099R”;
    - award attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Respondent’s position:
  - Characterizes Applicant’s Request as a “blatant attempt to reopen the Judgment to introduce a new claim” that is primarily an issue between Applicant and national tax authorities and, to the extent it involves the Fund, is an unexhausted claim.
  - Maintains the Request is “not a request for interpretation, but a request to review and decide a new claim.”

### Tribunal’s Analysis
- Finality principle:
  - Article XIII, Section 2 provides: “Judgments shall be final, subject to Article XVI and Article XVII, and without appeal.”
  - The Tribunal treats that provision as codifying the principle of res judicata.
- Interpretation and revision exceptions:
  - Interpretation of judgments under Article XVII and revision under Article XVI are “narrowly drawn exceptions” to finality.
  - Article XVII states: “The Tribunal may interpret or correct any judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete, or which contains a typographical or arithmetical error.”
  - Rule XX, para. 2, of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that an application for interpretation “. . . shall be admissible only if it states with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete.”
- Application to Applicant’s Request:
  - The Tribunal finds Applicant failed to “state[ ] with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete” (Rule XX, para. 2).
  - The contested issue arises from post-Judgment acts by the Fund: specifically, how the Fund reported the payments to national tax authorities (a “Fund-generated, post-Judgment question” in Applicant’s own words).
  - The Tribunal observes that requests that would amend a final Judgment rather than interpret an obscure or incomplete term fall outside Article XVII and must be denied.
  - The Tribunal also notes that Applicant’s Request would be denied if treated as a request for revision under Article XVI because Applicant has not presented evidence of a fact that was unknown at the time of judgment and which might have had a decisive influence on the judgment.
  - The Tribunal reiterates its view (citing prior practice) that it has not adopted a practice of stating that compensation awards are on a net-of-tax basis and that it is for the Fund to decide in the first instance whether (and how) tax allowances should be adjusted to take account of the Tribunal’s awards; disputes over such Fund decisions are subject to the Fund’s dispute resolution system.

### Order
- The Tribunal unanimously denies Applicant’s Request for Interpretation of Judgment No. 2019-1.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1.pdf_