MaushamMishra लीलाप्रसाद उप्रेती वि. नेपाल बैंक लिमिटेड प्रधान कार्यालय समेत
नोकरी टुटी मुद्दा जिती पुनर्वहाली भएकोमा निजको टुटेको अवधिको तलबभत्ता एकमुष्ट प्राप्त गरेकोलाई एकमुष्ट रकमलाई कर निर्धारण गर्ने पछिल्लो वर्षको आय मान्न नमिल्ने । पारिश्रमिक आयलाई प्रत्येक वर्षको एकमुष्ट रकम एक वर्षको आय मानेपछि निवेदक जस्ता करदातालाई करको भार बढ्न जाने र सरकार Unjust enrich हुन पुग्ने ।
Another noteworthy aspect gleaned from the examined case law involves the decisions rendered in the cases of लीलाप्रसाद उप्रेती वि. नेपाल बैंक लिमिटेड प्रधान कार्यालय समेत and बद्रि कुमार प्याकुरेल विरुद्ध नेपाल नागरिक उड्डयन प्राधिकरण समेत. In the former, the court's judgment followed the improper suspension of the employee, resulting in the receipt of a cumulative lump sum employment income spanning multiple years. Conversely, in the latter, the court's ruling arose from a scenario where the employee, due to circumstances, could not access their provident fund income, subsequently receiving the entitled amount in its entirety at a later juncture.
A pivotal query arises in light of these circumstances: while the recent amendment in Section 22(2) of the Income Tax Act facilitates "accrual accounting" for employment income as per court rulings after an employee's reinstatement, it remains unclear how this provision applies to instances where the employment income could not be timely collected by the employee, leading to a cumulative receipt, as in the case of बद्रि कुमार प्याकुरेल विरुद्ध नेपाल नागरिक उड्डयन प्राधिकरण समेत.
Consequently, several pertinent questions emerge:
- Can an employee who, despite rendering services, was unable to collect their employment income avail the extended income years' provision for tax calculation purposes?
- If the answer is affirmative, does this provision extend to situations where an employee and employer mutually agree to defer the receipt of employment income (e.g., as seen in the context of the COVID-19 situation)? In such cases, would the employee have the liberty to elongate their income recognition over multiple fiscal years and consequently benefit from reduced taxation?
It appears that if the first scenario is indeed viable, the second should logically follow suit. The intrinsic nature of these transactions presents minimal differentiation. Whether an active employee cannot receive employment income due to their or their employer's circumstances, or an active employee deliberately chooses to accumulate employment income for later receipt, the core transactional essence remains unaltered. While such arrangements may not seamlessly align with labor law provisions, this discussion pertains solely to the tax perspective.