objectively ascertained mutual intention to create legal relations on the terms of that annotated document. Nor is there any discernible basis upon which an equitable estoppel might be said to arise. As Jagot J observed in Atkinson v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 1217, a case involving facts not dissimilar to those here, at [47]:
The statement of account is not a bill of exchange as defined in s 8(1) of the Act. The first applicant was not authorised to do anything with the statement of account under the Act. Writing and putting various stamps on the statement of account had no legal effect under the Act. Nor did delivering that statement of account back to the ATO. The Act is simply not engaged at all by the facts of this case. The notion that a person who owes the ATO money for non-payment of tax can transform the ATO's statement of account into a bill of exchange and then deliver the statement of account back to the ATO and, in so doing, discharge the person's own indebtedness for some nominal amount ($1) and render the ATO liable to pay the original amount owed to the ATO plus interest and other charges is some form of fantasy, unconnected to the operation of the Act.
62 Although the above passage was confined to notations made on a statement of account, the Defendant submitted, and I accept, that Jagot J's observations apply with equal force to other documents unilaterally created by a taxpayer, such as the "Bill of Exchange" and "Promissory Note" issued by Mesha Feet.
63 None of the English authority relied on by Mesha Feet, in which statements have been made about bills of exchange and promissory notes being treated as cash, assist it (Mesha Feet referred to the judgment of Lord Denning in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar [1969] 2 All ER 150; 1 WLR 357 at 361, Ex parte Matthew (1884) 12 QBD 506 and a passage said to be from a case named Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 TLR 92, but which is in fact from Ferson Contractors Ltd v John Owner Ferris [1981] 1 WLUK 636). Those cases have nothing to do with the means by which taxation liabilities in Australia may be paid.
64 For completeness, I note that the Defendant made additional submissions to the effect that the "Promissory Note" issued by Mesha Feet was not even an effective promissory note and the "Bill of Exchange" was not an effective bill of exchange. However, given that the points referred to above are dispositive, it is not necessary to address those arguments.
65 The application will be dismissed with costs.
