[saul-james]

“I came across these two failed attempts of using promissory notes in Australia, does Mark address the reasons why they failed in their attempt in any training or other areas of this platform?”

It’s quite possible he does refer to one or both of these cases somewhere among the Q&A sessions, but I cannot confirm that. Alternatively, perhaps we can figure out why they failed?

From what I can tell from reading the articles provided, it seems both failed because they presented testimony/argument/made claims. As Mark constantly reminds us, we must NEVER make claims in any situation, whether in court or along the roadside. Always ask questions.

For example…

“Payment by those means is not a means of payment approved by the Commissioner,” she said.

“The fact that there is no legislation specifying that promissory notes and bills of exchange cannot be used as means to pay tax debts is beside the point. The point is that they are not means of payment that have been approved.”

Q: So we are in agreement that a bill of exchange is a lawful means of payment? And additionally, are you claiming that the Commissioner can ignore the laws of the Commonwealth as it pertains to payments within the Commonwealth?

In regards to the ATO case, the case may also fail because the instrument titled “Bill of Exchange” in the picture from the article is not a BoE according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1909. The instrument in question fails to qualify due to a single indorsement. Where is the ATO’s signature? The only BoE in the image is the cheque itself.

The BoE in reality is the penalty notice sent to you by the ATO; the instrument of first issue, made by and indorsed by the ATO with their seal. The receiver of the instrument may either pay or PAY TO THE ORDER OF. You have two options; you either pay the money or you can indorse it payable to some party.

Bill of exchange defined

A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person (the ATO) to another (You), signed by the person giving it (the seal of the ATO), requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time (due date), a sum certain in money to or TO THE ORDER OF (2nd option) a specified person, or to bearer.
— Bills of Exchange Act 1909 Section 8(1)

So, from my understanding the instruments offered to the ATO don’t make much sense if presented alone. However, if those same instruments where presented in the form of a contract renegotiation, as Mark does, that is a different story altogether. When presented as a renegotiation of contract the focus is no longer on the actual instruments but on the contract itself.

It may be a fact that issuing promissory notes and indorsing bills of exchange is an option under statute, but it may also be a fact that the average Joe is unable to use these methods without resistance because we don’t have the Power of Attorney over our legal person. This is probably why Mark uses contracts to discharge liabilities rather than relying on the negotiable instruments alone.

It appears from the articles that both parties did not follow Mark’s methods of operating entirely within contract law and asking set-up questions.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  saul-james.