Woods v Australian Taxation Office & Ors

[2017] QCA 28

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Federal jurisdiction
3. › Investiture of federal jurisdiction in State courts
4. › Whether District Court of Queensland capable of exercising federal jurisdiction
5. › Whether interpretation of Commonwealth Acts within vested jurisdiction
6. › Constitution, s 77(iii)
7. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2)
1. Taxes and Duties
2. › Administration of federal tax legislation
3. › Collection and recovery of tax
4. › Methods of payment of tax liability
5. › Whether tax liability may be discharged by unilateral delivery of promissory notes
6. › Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 16A(2)
7. › Taxation Administration Regulations 1976 (Cth), reg 18
8. › Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth)
1. Contract
2. › Formation of contractual relations
3. › Mutual intention to contract
4. › Whether unilateral marking up of documents and delivery to another party creates a legally binding contract
5. › Whether conduct evidencing mutual intention to contract was pleaded
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › District Court of Queensland
4. › Assessment of prospects of success
5. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967, s 118(3)

Quick Take

A tax liability cannot be discharged by unilateral delivery of promissory notes, and the marking up of ATO running balance of account notices does not create legally binding contracts. The Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth) does not legislate for the manner in which tax-related debts may be paid and creates no inconsistency with the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) and regulations.