Opinion ID: 1567336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Whether McNeel should be compensated for additional income taxation incurred by virtue of her wrongful termination.

Text: ¶ 40. McNeel presented evidence at the hearing that the lump-sum payment she received from the MDHS placed her in a markedly higher tax bracket than if she had been paid in the individual years between 1999 and 2004. In fact, according to Bill McNeel's calculations, [22] the difference amounted to increased federal and state income tax of $24,866. ¶ 41. The EAB determined that McNeel was not entitled to any reimbursement... due to the state and federal taxes on the back pay lump sum payment. The circuit court affirmed, finding that McNeel has not cited any relevant authority that would lead this court to believe her constitutional or statutory rights were violated by the full board's denial of this reimbursement. ¶ 42. Similar to its argument in Issue III., supra, the MDHS maintains that it abided by the SPARHS program in calculating McNeel's back pay, and an employee is taxed by the year that she may receive payment from her employer. See 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (2008). As reimbursement for income taxes is not relief that can be awarded under Rule 24(A)[,] the MDHS asserts that its allowable action under the policies, rules and regulations of the State Personnel Board should not be altered by the EAB. Miss. Employee Appeals Board Administrative Rule 24(B). ¶ 43. According to the IRS, for income tax purposes, the IRS treats all back pay as wages in the year paid.  Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/ publications/p957/ar02.html (last visited May 27, 2009) (emphasis added). As such, this Court cannot find that the EAB's denial of McNeel's request for income-tax reimbursement was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, or in violation of McNeel's statutory or constitutional rights. See Miss.Code Ann. § 25-9-132(2) (Rev.2006). Therefore, this Court concludes that this issue is without merit.