I. The Architecture of Check Settlement

When a taxpayer presents a check to the Internal Revenue Service, a precise sequence of ledger adjustments occurs across multiple institutions. The taxpayer’s initial instruction—embodied in the check—reads: “To Taxpayer’s Bank: Debit my demand deposit account in the amount of $X and transfer said credit to the order of the United States Treasury.”

This instruction initiates the following entries:

At the Payor Bank: DR: Customer Deposit Account $X, CR: Federal Reserve Settlement Account $X. The bank has not transferred money but has reclassified the liability from customer-facing to interbank.

At the Federal Reserve: DR: Payor Bank Reserve Account $X, CR: Treasury General Account $X. Note that Federal Reserve “reserves” are themselves merely database entries—liabilities of the Federal Reserve that exist solely as electronic records.

At Treasury: The Treasury General Account increases by $X, which Treasury subsequently allocates to the appropriate agency account, crediting the taxpayer’s obligation.

The critical observation: at no point do physical assets move. Each institution simply adjusts internal ledger entries. The check serves as the authorization document that triggers this cascade of bookkeeping entries.

This process exemplifies that money exists primarily as accounting entries, not as physical objects. The check clearing system processes over $75 trillion annually through pure ledger adjustments, with settlement occurring at designated times through netting arrangements that minimize actual reserve movements. The entire architecture rests on mutual recognition of ledger entries as final settlement—a principle that applies equally to any negotiable instrument capable of ledger instruction.

II. The Mechanics of Electronic Settlement

Automated Clearing House (ACH) transactions strip away even the pretense of physical documentation. An ACH payment instruction consists of nothing more than a standardized data file containing: originator routing number, originator account number, recipient routing number, recipient account number, amount, and transaction code.

The Federal Reserve processes approximately 30 billion ACH transactions annually, each one a pure information transfer that results in reciprocal ledger adjustments. The absence of any physical instrument demonstrates that modern payment systems operate on information transfer, not asset transfer.

ACH transactions reveal the skeleton of all modern payment—standardized data fields that instruct ledger adjustments. The NACHA Operating Rules govern these transactions not by specifying physical transfer mechanisms but by standardizing the format of ledger instructions. Whether initiated by corporate payroll, government benefit payment, or tax collection, each ACH transaction represents nothing more than an authenticated instruction to adjust account balances. The system’s ability to process 30 billion annual transactions—approximately 95 transactions per American per year—demonstrates the complete abstraction of payment from physical value transfer.

III. The Bill of Exchange as Ledger Instruction

A Bill of Exchange, properly constructed, contains identical informational elements to a check: drawer identification, drawee identification, payee identification, amount, and signature authorization. Under UCC Article 3, both instruments qualify as negotiable instruments—written unconditional orders to pay a fixed amount of money.

The BOE presented to the IRS contains the instruction: “To the Treasury: Debit the tax obligation created by your assessment and credit my account in satisfaction thereof.” This represents the same fundamental operation as a check—an instruction to adjust ledgers—merely routing through different settlement channels.

The crucial backing mechanism: Unlike a check that references existing bank deposits, the BOE references the economic value created by the IRS’s own presentment. This distinction is fundamental: a check draws on pre-existing funds the taxpayer deposited, while the BOE draws on the obligation the IRS created through sovereign assessment. When the IRS sends a tax bill with payment coupon, it creates an assessment that forces the taxpayer to recognize DR: Tax Expense, CR: Taxes Payable. This sovereign-created liability becomes the funding source for the BOE through reclassification: DR: Taxes Payable, CR: Notes Payable. The BOE thus returns to the IRS the very value their assessment created—not transferring external funds but repatriating their own sovereign claim reformatted as a commercial instrument. This mirrors Werner’s discovery that banks create deposits through lending—here, the IRS creates the taxpayer’s liability through assessment, which the taxpayer reformats and returns.

IV. The Arbitrary Distinction in Settlement Channels

The IRS’s Internal Revenue Manual Section 3.8.45.5.10.1 explicitly contemplates BOE receipt, instructing personnel to forward such instruments to Treasury for Fedwire settlement. Fedwire, like ACH, operates through pure ledger adjustment—the Federal Reserve debits one participant’s master account and credits another’s.

The technical capacity to process BOEs through Fedwire exists; the Manual acknowledges this reality. The distinction between acceptable and unacceptable instruments thus cannot rest on technical impossibility but rather on administrative preference—a preference that lacks justification when the underlying ledger mechanics remain identical.

Fedwire processes over $4 trillion daily through 800,000+ transactions, each one a pure electronic ledger adjustment between Federal Reserve master accounts. The system’s message format includes specific fields for “third-party information”—precisely the type of instruction a BOE would provide. Treasury maintains subaccounts within the Federal Reserve system specifically for processing various types of government receipts. The infrastructure exists; only administrative will is lacking. The IRM’s instruction to forward BOEs to Treasury explicitly acknowledges their capacity for Fedwire processing, undermining any claim of technical impossibility.

V. The Accounting Identity Principle

Under double-entry bookkeeping, every payment instrument must result in balanced entries across the monetary system. Whether processing a check, wire transfer, or BOE, the fundamental equation remains: ΣDebits = ΣCredits across all affected ledgers

The taxpayer’s books show: DR: Tax Payable, CR: Notes Payable The IRS’s required entry: DR: Notes Receivable, CR: Taxpayer Account

This represents the same paired entry structure as check processing, merely with different account classifications. The IRS’s refusal to book the receivable creates an accounting anomaly—a payable without corresponding receivable—violating the fundamental balance requirement of double-entry systems.

The preservation requirement: Upon settlement, the taxpayer must record: DR: Notes Payable, CR: Tax Expense-Contra. This contra account mechanism preserves the original DR: Tax Expense that funded the BOE, maintaining proof that the instrument was backed by the IRS’s own sovereign assessment rather than created ex nihilo. This sophisticated accounting treatment parallels how banks maintain loan receivables even after satisfaction, preserving the audit trail that demonstrates genuine value creation and destruction rather than fictitious instrument generation.

VI. Conclusion: Substance Over Form

The modern payment system operates through ledger adjustment, not physical value transfer. Every payment instrument—whether check, electronic transfer, or bill of exchange—serves merely as the authorization document for these adjustments. To accept one form while rejecting another, when both accomplish identical accounting results through marginally different channels, elevates form over substance in violation of both accounting principles and equitable treatment doctrine.

The IRS’s own Manual recognizes BOEs as instruments requiring specific processing. Their failure to process according to their published procedures, while accepting functionally identical instruments that differ only in routing, exposes the arbitrary nature of payment discrimination in an era of purely ledger-based monetary systems.

This analysis reveals that payment discrimination in modern financial systems lacks principled justification. When all payment reduces to ledger adjustment, the choice of which instruments to accept becomes purely political, not technical. The IRS’s acceptance of checks while refusing properly constructed BOEs—despite having published procedures for both—exemplifies arbitrary administrative preference masquerading as technical necessity. In an age where central banks openly acknowledge that money is endogenous and bank-created, where international settlements occur through pure database entries, and where trillions move daily without any physical substrate, the continued rejection of certain ledger instruction formats while accepting others reveals not operational constraints but institutional control preferences.

The taxpayer who follows published procedures for tendering payment through negotiable instruments acts within the established framework of modern monetary mechanics, and administrative agencies that refuse such tenders while simultaneously pursuing collection violate both their own procedures and fundamental principles of equitable treatment.

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This document is provided as a template form for informational purposes only. It is not exhaustive, nor is it intended as a universal template. Users must review and comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, statutes, and constitutional provisions before use. This template constitutes legal information and is not a substitute for competent legal, financial, or tax advice. You should consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for legal counsel. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Government works incorporated into this document are in the public domain pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 105.