Tax Payment Method

[Quixote]

Does anyone know if this was a true check with payment coming from Mr. Thrash's checking account?

Or was it more along the lines of a "Bill of Exchange"?

Or was it a third-party check?

It was a draft on which Thrash was both drawer and drawee. I doubt that Alabama law allows payment of taxes with any draft that is not a check, i.e., drawn on a bank.

[ogr8bearded1]

Sorry buddy, at best you tried giving the court an IOU and at worst sought to commit a fraud.

Here's a hint, for about a dollar at 7-11 and other places, you can purchase a money order, which you would then make out to the state or whomever. End of problem. I mean really, an illegal immigrant who has been in the US less than an hour has that one figured out.

I tried nothing, I succeeded.

So now you want me to pay to get my money back and to pay them? I'm already paying for the stamp for God's sake!

Also note, they refused an offer of cash at the District office claiming they were not authourised and such payment had to be sent to Montgomery, but were willing to take a money order. Now what does the law say about refusal of Federal Reserve Notes offered for a debt? Ya know, the small green pieces of paper that say "For all debts public and private."

Both the Federal and State tax booklets even clearly refuse a cash payment. "DO NOT SEND CASH." Says this very early on in both.

The law defines a negotiable instrument. A check drawn on a bank is little more than a glorified negotiable instrument. Mine is no different but involves no third party unless the State had decided to pass to a third party by signing over to them. This is basically what happened when they passed the note to Judge Thompson, he exchanged the note for the cash and then gave the cash to the State. The State never challenged the legality in oral arguments, only stated that allowing such payment would cause hardship to collect. Perhaps the judge and State counsel had an ex parte discussion that the legality of the document was not in question, I don't know.

There is no choice in what negotiable instruments are acceptable.

"Don't send cash, in fact only send a check drawn on a bank."
"I don't have a checking account."
"Then you must get one at your expense."
"And if I don't?"
"Then you shall be fined by the courts."
"Can I pay the fine with a check?"
"Sorry, they only take cash."

[The Operative]

Let's correct some misconceptions:

Negotiable instruments -
There are nine basic requirements for an instrument to be negotiable. The instrument must...
1. be in writing,
2. be signed,
3. contain a promise or order to pay,
4. be unconditional,
5. be for a fixed amount,
6. be for money,
7. contain not other undertaking or instruction,
8. be payable on demand or at a definite time, and
9. be payable to order or to bearer.

The reason I placed "at a definite time" in bold is because I believe this is where one of your misunderstandings about negotiable instruments is derived. A check from the government that contains an expiration date, DOES NOT NEGATE NEGOTIABILITY during the time period before the expiration date. Instruments that are payable at a definite time are referred to as time paper. An instrument is payable at a definite time if it is payable on or before a stated date. If an instrument is dated 6/2/2009 and states that it is void after one year, that is a definite time and the instrument is, if all other factors are met, a negotiable instrument.

Now, let's look at your "negotiable instrument". I agree that your instrument does meet the standard definition of a negotiable instrument. HOWEVER, and this is big, your negotiable instrument is a PROMISE TO PAY. The government had already DEMANDED that you pay. Your negotiable instrument did not satisfy that demand. The government had already made the demand that you pay a debt. Sending a negotiable instrument, that could not be readily exchanged at a bank for cash, does not constitute payment. Think about it. The government has demanded the payment of what you owe. In response, you send a sheet of notebook paper that basically states that you will pay the government $32 when they demand it. Basically, all you did was tell the government that you wanted them to demand payment again.

Also, CaptainKickback is right. While the coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, public and private, that does not mean that any agency must accept them. Under the Coinage Act of 1965, it states, United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. This means that United States currency is a valid and legal OFFER of payment. Nothing within that statute requires that businesses must accept currency or coins for payment. If the Alabama Department of Revenue wishes to require payment in check or money order, it is up to them.

Finally, a negotiable instrument is named because IT IS NEGOTIABLE. There is no requirement, except to the maker, to pay the face amount of the instrument. If Person A writes a note, that is negotiable, to pay to the order of Person B, $1,000 in six months and Person B endorses it and sells that note to Person C for $900. Person C is the holder in due course, if no other conditions negate that. Person B no longer has any claim against Person A because he is no longer a holder. Person C holds the note to maturity and collects $1,000 from Person A. A bank is perfectly within their rights to offer to pay you less than the face amount for the check. You are free to accept or reject that offer. If you reject it, you will need to go somewhere else to cash the check or again ask them to cash the check and probably get the same offer.

[ogr8bearded1]

Though there may be nothing in that statute which says someone must take U.S. Currency there have been court decisions. A refusal of a cash payment for all or even part of a debt has been ruled to negate that debt. Your example of a business not accepting cash does not contradict this as the courts have also upheld that there is no debt when a customer offers to purchase an item or a seller offers to sell. The seller has the right to ask for whatever payment he wishes. Further the courts have ruled that coinage (which does not have any legal tender statement) does not have to be accepted. This ruling was to stop people from paying taxes all in coins, often cents, or other debts such as electric bills.

As for a demand for payment being made, you cannot telephone or mail someone a demand and ask that cash be put into your hand. Try calling your bank next time you get a check and tell them, "I have a check from so & so, here's all the information on it, just go ahead and move the money." I suspect the bank may want to see the check first.

[Demosthenes]

Before issuing the negotiable instrument I contacted the Governor who asked the head of the Department of Revenue to talk to me (nice letter on pretty stationary) and even later sent me an invitation to the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony. The head of the Department of Revenue refused to even come to the phone. That left me no choice but to proceed on the course I took. I had been ignored by the legislative and executive branches so my only recourse was to seek remedy from the judicial.

Once again, what a fricken' waste of your time and taxpayer's money.

Do you enjoy being a crank?

[The Operative]

Though there may be nothing in that statute which says someone must take U.S. Currency there have been court decisions. A refusal of a cash payment for all or even part of a debt has been ruled to negate that debt. Your example of a business not accepting cash does not contradict this as the courts have also upheld that there is no debt when a customer offers to purchase an item or a seller offers to sell. The seller has the right to ask for whatever payment he wishes. Further the courts have ruled that coinage (which does not have any legal tender statement) does not have to be accepted. This ruling was to stop people from paying taxes all in coins, often cents, or other debts such as electric bills.

Do you have case citations? I highly doubt some of your examples.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/crimean ... 07624.html
http://www.pvcommunitylife.com/NC/0/863.html
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/l ... ation.aspx

As for a demand for payment being made, you cannot telephone or mail someone a demand and ask that cash be put into your hand. Try calling your bank next time you get a check and tell them, "I have a check from so & so, here's all the information on it, just go ahead and move the money." I suspect the bank may want to see the check first.

I figured that I did not write the explanation in simple enough terms so that you would understand. When you have a legal obligation to pay taxes, the government can and will send you a bill that you are required to pay. Of course, you can contest the amount and the determination of that amount. However, without contesting that amount, you still have an obligation to pay and the bill that was sent to you was a demand for the payment.

As I stated, you had an existing obligation to pay the taxes. Sending a piece of paper to the creditor (the government) that basically states that you will pay $32 upon presentment of the paper is not a payment. All you did was waste time and increase governmental costs in having to deal with you.

A check is different than a bill. A check is a type of negotiable instrument. In order to demand payment based upon a negotiable instrument of which you are a holder in due course, you must PRESENT the negotiable instrument with all of the required endorsements to the maker or drawee. That is why you can't call a bank and have them move the money.

[Pottapaug1938]

If the head of the Department of Revenue came to the phone to talk to every crank who calls, he'd spend his entire working day on the phone, listening to bizarre arguments like this one.

[ogr8bearded1]

In a way we were both right on the refusal of a legal tender voiding a debt. If cash is offered it may be refused, but no other form of tender can be required. If the creditor continues to deny the cash until the statue of limitations on collection runs out then he receives nothing.

You are correct that it is not illegal to pay debts in coins.

When a note is given and no time of payment is mentioned, it is payable immediately. 8 John. R. 374; 5 Cowen, R. 516 1 Conn. R. 404; 1 Bibb, R. 164; 1 Blackf. R. 233. (This is why I needed no date of payment on the document.)



When demand of the payment of a debt, secured by note or other instrument, is made, the party making it should be ready to deliver up such note or instrument, on payment. If it has been lost or destroyed, an indemnity should be offered. 2 Taunt. 61; 3 Taunt. 397; 5 Taunt. 30; 6 Mass. R. 524; 7 Mass. R. 483; 13 Mass. R. 557; 11 Wheat. R. 171; 4 Verm. R. 313; 7 Gill & Johns. 78 3 Whart. R. 116; 12 Pick. R. 132 17 Mass. 449. (This is why you can't make a demand for payment by phone or letter.)

As laid down in the United States Coinage Act of 1965, all coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues.

However, US federal law does not restrict private businesses, persons or organisations in what methods of payment they choose to accept or refuse. Businesses are therefore free to insist on payment by credit card, for example, or to refuse larger denomination banknotes. Even further though, legal tender laws do not preclude businesses from choosing to reject U.S. dollars for payment altogether. In this regard legal tender laws do not pertain to voluntary transactions.

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that all US issued money, both paper and coin, is legal tender and therefore must be accepted for debts in the country, while foreign money is not. (sorry, don't have the cite)

For the purpose of avoiding a penalty and forfeiture, or the loss of any rights or privileges tender is the exact equivalent of payment, and it does not have to be repeated. Beatty v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n (U.S.) 75 Fed. 65, 72, 21 C. C. . 227. (this could be why no penalty or interest was attached.)

Tender, if of sufficient amount, when accepted is payment. When rejected, it operates as payment so long as it is kept good. Brown v. Lawton, 32 Atl. 733, 735, 87 Me. 83.

This is the most important one here.

To constitute a valid legal tender there must be an actual offer of the sum due, unless the actual production of the money be dispensed with by a refusal to accept or something equivalent thereto; and this offer must be an absolute one, not coupled with any condition. See 2 Starkle, Ev. 778,779, and cases there cited. Hunter v. Warner, 1 Wis. 141, 147. (note here that tax booklets say "Do Not Send Cash")

Now for those questioning the legality of my note, the day the judge cashed such note precedent was set. This is now case law and can be cited. Your arguments were possibly valid for the defense to use, but they did not and only laid claim that collection would be a burden.

In response to the gentleman who said I was representative of the New South, no sir, I am representative of the Old South. Though the cease fire at Appomattox stated we would no longer fire bullets to further our cause, the fact was made clear that we would continue to defend our rights, beliefs and understandings of the law through the judicial system. (And the first one who tries to bring up slavery is just ignorant of the reasons the war was fought.)

[Pottapaug1938]

I notice that all of the cases cited in the previous post appear to be very old. Be they old or new, though, this effort to tap dance around the requirement to pay taxes by check is going to be just as successful as the TP attempts to tap dance around the requirement to pay income and other taxes. Not only that, but as I said earlier the effort will consume resources far in excess of, say, the cost of a money order. Even if -- IF -- it succeeded, it would be like trying to kill a mosquito with a 155mm howitzer.

[ogr8bearded1]

This is not a hypothetical or pending case, it is a case already decided. No if anywhere.

I do not continue to miss the point but believe you do. Yes, a private person, business or organisation can make anything they like required tender for a transaction. I showed that in about the middle of my post. Where a debt is concerned other rules apply. Also, the government is not allowed to reject a legal tender. I believe you are confusing voluntary transactions and debt transactions. Different rules apply to them as I showed.

Let me add this though. Say a car dealer agrees to sell you a car for $8000 and paperwork shows this amount and both parties agree. The dealer cannot then demand payment be made in gold instead of currency. The $8000 is considered as being only for currency. The dealer can choose to accept other forms (bank drafts, checks, credit cards and such) but cannot deny cash. On the otherhand, the dealer is free to draw up a contract of sale which states payment is to be made in gold (or whatever it is he wants) and then that is the tender required by the buyer. If the payment is to be in any form other than currency it must be stated in advance and cannot be changed after the fact.

[jcolvin2]

I do not continue to miss the point but believe you do. Yes, a private person, business or organisation can make anything they like required tender for a transaction. I showed that in about the middle of my post. Where a debt is concerned other rules apply. Also, the government is not allowed to reject a legal tender. I believe you are confusing voluntary transactions and debt transactions. Different rules apply to them as I showed.

Cite the law that states a governmental entity is not allowed to reject a legal tender.

From Treasury's FAQs:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/cu ... nder.shtml

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

My comments: If there is a pre-existing debt, the creditor is required to accept cash in satisfaction. However, someone who is not already a creditor may decide not to enter into a transaction (exchange of money for goods and services) unless you are willing to pay him or her in the form that they want, e.g. nothing larger than a $20 bill.