-
Bill of Exchange Mesha Feet vs Deputy Commissioner Case Law Precedent?
I have been reading the very recent Federal Court case of Mesha Feet vs ATO and am trying to figure out why the discharge of the tax liability didn’t work out. I’ve identified a couple of issues, one being that Mesha Feet was prosecuting, so the burden of proof was with them. It’s also hard to discern what Mesha did or did not do (e.g. properly articulating conditional acceptance) because the link only includes the Judge’s reasons for judgement, no transcript. I find it concerning that the judge ruled (with reference to Section 16A(2) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) that “The person must pay the tax-related liability “using a method approved by the commissioner” is denoted in ‘positive terms’, and therefore the fact that the regulation doesn’t preclude payment by way Bill of Exchange is irrelevant (see point #45). This seems to establish some case law precedent against the Bill of Exchange as a tax liability discharge process.
Link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/680.html
-
This discussion was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
odlaw.
austlii.edu.au
Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), a joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law.
-
This discussion was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by