Module 44 - How To Step Out Of The “You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy!” agenda -
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
-
3 Replies
-
My suggestions would be that it seems to but if they claim that this ruling precludes Bills of Exchange in the future, then wouldn’t they have to prove the BOE Act does not apply? I would think that generally people lose because they are either not well enough prepared or as in this case they take the ATO to court instead of doing a private proceeding and getting an equitable estoppel agreement and private default judgment. If you take some one to court then is not the burden of proof on you? If they take you to court is not the burden of proof on them? If you require them to provide evidence of any claims (they might be making) by way of a three step conditional acceptance process then is not the burden of proof on them?
-
Thanks @morag-janet-of-the-hill-family , you’re always providing insights on these discussions. Are you part of the Solutions Empowerment team per chance?
-
No I’m not I’ve just been studying on here for four years and dealing with things in my life and helping friends (that are members) when they need it using Mark’s methods and modules and making sure they buy the modules as well and that they put in time and effort to write their own notices.
-
-