In Atkinson v Commissioner of Taxation  FCA 1217 the applicants sought a declaration that $112,500.00 in outstanding income tax had been paid by a bill of exchange. Peter Paalvast filed written submissions on behalf of the first and second applicants. The court noted:
This is the third time this year that this Court has been called upon to decide a case in which Mr Peter Paalvast (the second respondent) has been involved: see Bertola v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd  FCA 609; and Wilmink as trustee for the Bangarra Trust v Westpac Banking Corporation  FCA 872. In each case, the party associated or advised by Mr Paalvast has owed significant amounts to a creditor. In each case, the debtor (with Mr Paalvast’s assistance) has “filled up” a statement received from the creditor recording the debtor’s liability so that it resembles a “bill of exchange”. In this case, the document “filled up” by the applicants was a computer generated “Statement of Account” issued by the respondent to the first applicant in relation to the first applicant’s outstanding tax debt. In each case, the debtor has been delivered the “filled up” statement to the creditor and asserted that delivery, and the creditor’s failure to negotiate the debt, has effected discharge of the debt pursuant to s 50 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Cth). In conclusion, the arguments that the applicants have cynically deployed in this proceeding to obtain a stay of the Local Court proceeding have been characterised as hopeless nonsense in previous proceedings, and hopeless nonsense they remain… If Mr Paalvast persists with applications of this character consideration should be given to whether a vexatious proceedings order should be made under s 37AO of the FCA Act.”
The decision was appealed in Atkinson v Commissioner of Taxation  FCAFC 18 without success.