The Mauritius Revenue Authority takes bold policy decision to treat compensation under Compromise Agreements as exempt income

Published: 23 Dec 2024
Type: Insight

In a bold move, the Mauritius Revenue Authority has decided on the 20 December 2024 to treat compensation received under a compromise agreement pursuant to Section 16 of the Workers Rights Act as “exempt up to a maximum of Rs 3 million”.


Appleby recently acted for a company in a redundancy matter, under Section 72 of the Workers’ Rights Act, whereby after several rounds of negotiations a compromise agreement was signed pursuant to Section 16 of the Workers’ Rights Act 2019.

Section 16 provides:

16. Compromise agreement

(1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Code Civil Mauricien and any other enactment, where a worker and an employer 26 agree to resolve a dispute concerning the amount of compensation or other related payments, by whatever name called, paid following a termination of employment, or the amount of remuneration payable in a case of non-payment or short payment of remuneration, the worker and the employer shall enter into a compromise agreement.

(2) A compromise agreement shall not be valid where – (a) the compromise agreement was not vetted by an independent adviser; (aa) the worker has not, prior to entering into the compromise agreement, received advice from a relevant independent adviser regarding the terms of the agreement and the effect of that agreement on his claim; or (b) the independent adviser was a party to the matter for the employer.

(3) Where an employer fails to comply with a compromise agreement, any payment due to the worker under the agreement may be claimed in Court.

(3A) Subject to subsection (2), where a compromise agreement concerning termination of employment is made between a worker and an employer under subsection (1), the employer may deduct the contributions payable to the Portable Retirement Gratuity Fund from the amount payable under the compromise agreement.

(4) In this subsection (1) – “relevant independent adviser” means – (a) a qualified law practitioner; (b) an officer or a member of a registered trade union; (c) an officer of the Ministry.

The issue that arose was whether the amount paid to the employees as “compensation” under Section 16 of the Workers’ Rights Act 2019 was exempt from tax.

Following an exchange between an employee of the company and the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA), the MRA informed the employee that the compensation payable would be “exempt up to a maximum of Rs 3 million…employees who reckon less than 12 months of service will not be eligible for the exemption”.

In an interesting exchange with the MRA, it came to light that the MRA treated the compensation as a “severance allowance” payment. The attention of the MRA was drawn to the wording used by the legislator in Section 16 of the Workers’ Rights Act 2019 which uses the term “compensation” as opposed to “severance allowance” or “severance payment”.

Following the exchange, the MRA took to time to consider and on the 20 December 2024, the MRA informed me as follows:

  1. The MRA has taken a policy decision to treat the compensation as being exempt; and
  2. The Income Tax Act will be amended accordingly to cater for compromise agreement.

This is a welcomed stand by the MRA inasmuch as it has been a debate for some time, whether when there is a loss of office/redundancy, the compensation paid under a compromise agreement to the employee is and/or ought to be considered as an exempt amount (for up to a maximum of Rs 3 million).

The decision also seems to take into account any potential hardship that may arise (in certain circumstances) with the loss of a job.

Disclaimer:

This is a note on a specific case and ought not to be treated as legal advice. For legal advice on tax or employment matters, you may contact Appleby.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Financial-Services
8 Oct 2025

Enforcing Integrity: The UK’s Legal Arsenal Against Market Abuse

The legal concept of market abuse and the twin concept of upholding market integrity are not new as these were prevalent since the 17th century ¹. As a matter of fact, there is a belief that insider dealing was the root cause of demise of the South Sea Company in the 18th century.

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
9 Sep 2025

Dual Remedies Afforded against the Granting of Injunctions

Actis Consumer Grooming Products Ltd v Super-Max Mauritius [2025 SCJ 388]

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
27 Aug 2025

The Mauritian National Budget 2025/2026 - From abyss to prosperity: Rebuilding the bridge to future

On 05 June 2025, Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam GCSK, FRCP, Prime Minister of Mauritius, in his capacity as Minister of Finance (Minister of Finance) tabled the National Budget for the fiscal year 2025-2026 under the theme “From Abyss to Prosperity: Rebuilding the Bridge to the Future”.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
18 Aug 2025

Mauritius as an Ideal Seat for Arbitration

In one of its recent determinations, the Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirmed a line of decisions which confirmed its support to arbitration, whether international or domestic. These determinations reflect its understanding of the needs of business community, characterised by a marked choice to resolve disputes through a private mechanism to allow existing business relationships to thrive.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
25 Jul 2025

Insider Dealing: A Review of the Treatment in Mauritius, EU and US Federal law

A review of the treatment in Mauritius, the United States and the European Union of the offence of insider trading confirms the contrasting approaches which these jurisdictions have adopted on the issue even though all three jurisdictions share two fundamental concerns namely, (i) the prohibition on an insider to take an unfair advantage by reason of information which he has obtained to the detriment of third parties who are unaware of such information and, (ii) the protection of the integrity of financial markets and investor confidence ¹.

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
20 Jun 2025

Professional emails are personal data

Case Commentary – France, Cour de cassation, 18 June 2025, 23-19.022 Professional emails are personal data.

Website-Code-Mauritius-1
11 Jun 2025

Are our Courts tilting towards procedural flexibility?

Case Commentary: R.K.G FRUITS CO LTD v MAERSK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED 2025 SCJ 220. In a significant decision reaffirming the principle that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice, the Court of Civil Appeal allowed an appeal overturning an interlocutory judgment of the Bankruptcy Division that had dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of a contested board resolution.

Appleby-Website-Technology-and-Innovation
19 Mar 2025

Is Cryptocurrency security - the Mauritian and USA perspectives?

As any of the emerging technologies, cryptocurrency has been disruptive to the market and has challenged regulators globally. Unsurprisingly, it has been commented that “a little more than a decade ago, cryptocurrencies were essentially an academic concept. The idea seemed far-fetched to most people. But that all changed in 2009 with the creation of Bitcoin …/… [today] the world’s cryptocurrency market is worth more than USD 3 trillion …/… there’s no question that crypto is here to stay, and it will undoubtedly continue to disrupt countless industries ”.

IWD Grid Capture
8 Mar 2025

International Women’s Day 2025 roundtable: Rights. Equality. Empowerment.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
28 Jan 2025

Case Commentary: Mulliez H.S.B v Telecel Group SA & Anor 2025 SCJ 31

On 22 January 2025, the full bench of the Court of Civil Appeal in the matter of Mulliez H.S.B v Telecel Group SA & Anor 2025 SCJ 31 decided on the scope of Section 6 of the Court of Civil Appeal Act 1963, also common referred as the “similar purpose application” section. Unsurprisingly, the Court has pathed the way for judicial activism holding that the: “Court would therefore readily intervene, in the absence of any appropriate or adequate legal remedy, where the immediate and urgent intervention of the Court is warranted for the due administration of justice through the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.”