The recent case of Belloul v HMRC provides an interesting view on the concept of the definition of \u201creasonable excuse\u201d for tax purposes.\nHMRC\nThe case related to HMRCs ability to charge penalties for the taxpayers\u2019 failure to notify them about their liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) dating back several years.\nThe case had been centred around the taxpayer being unaware that not only was there a requirement to notify HMRC that the HICBC was payable but that they did not know the HICBC existed at all and as a result he could not be liable for a penalty.\nTribunal\nThe First Tier Tribunal found in favour of taxpayer and in effect stated that ignorance of the law IS an excuse.\nIt is important to state at the outset that this was a First Tier Tribunal case and cannot, as such, be regarded as Case Law. The case may be cited but where there is not an absolute parallel, simply cannot be relied upon. It is also extremely likely that HMRC will take the case further to overturn the decision on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in law.\nAn examination of the case reveals that the appellant was successful in their appeal on the grounds that HMRC were unable to prove that details of the introduction of the HICBC in 2013 were communicated to the couple involved.\nThe appellants were viewed by the Tribunal as conscientious taxpayers who were used to the PAYE system and could not be expected to trawl through HMRC\u2019s website searching for changes in the law which may affect them.\nIf HMRC had been able to prove that the changes had been communicated to them, the taxpayer\u2019s appeal would have been lost. However, the tribunal did not accept the evidence that HMRC had written to them because its systems stored the content of the communication, but not the actual letter with the postal address. \nThis may well be perceived that ignorance of the law is now an excuse. To overturn a long held (over 2,000 years) tenet such as this on the strength of a First Tier Tribunal Case is an extreme view and, as previously stated, actually holds no pull in Law.\nNo doubt the case will develop, and further updates will be issued as the case is progressed.