“81. When considering a “reasonable excuse” defence, therefore, in our view the FTT can usefully approach matters in the following way: (1) First, establish what facts the taxpayer asserts give rise to a reasonable excuse (this may include the belief, acts or omissions of the taxpayer or any other person, the taxpayer’s own experience or relevant attributes, the situation of the taxpayer at any relevant time and any other relevant external facts). (2) Second, decide which of those facts are proven. (3) Third, decide whether, viewed objectively, those proven facts do indeed amount to an objectively reasonable excuse for the default and the time when that objectively reasonable excuse ceased. In doing so, it should take into account the experience and other relevant attributes of the taxpayer and the situation in which the taxpayer found himself at the relevant time or times. It might assist the FTT, in this context, to ask itself the question “was what the taxpayer did (or omitted to do or believed) objectively reasonable for this taxpayer in those circumstances?” (4) Fourth, having decided when any reasonable excuse ceased, decide whether the taxpayer remedied the failure without unreasonable delay after that time (unless, exceptionally, the failure was remedied before the reasonable excuse ceased). In doing so, the FTT should again decide the matter objectively, but taking into account the experience and other relevant attributes of the taxpayer and the situation in which the taxpayer found himself at the relevant time or times. 82. One situation that can sometimes cause difficulties is when the taxpayer’s asserted reasonable excuse is purely that he/she did not know of the particular requirement that has been shown to have been breached. It is a much-cited aphorism that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and on occasion this has been given as a reason why the defence of reasonable excuse cannot be available in such circumstances. We see no basis for this argument. Some requirements of the law are well-known, simple and straightforward but others are much less so. It will be a matter of judgment for the FTT in each case whether it was objectively reasonable for the particular taxpayer, in the circumstances of the case, to have been ignorant of the requirement in question, and for how long. …”
“What to do if you disagree If there is nothing that you do not agree with, you should tell us. If we make a decision that you can appeal against we’ll write to you to explain the decision and tell you what to do if you disagree. You’ll have 3 options. Within 30 days you can: - Send us new information and ask us to take it into account - Have your case reviewed by an HMRC officer who has not been involved in the matter - Arrange for your appeal to be heard by an independent tribunal …” (4) Notification of HMRC’s decision to assess for tax and penalties dated25 March 2021 (addressed to 33 Harry Stokes Road). The assessments then follow on 7 April and11 April 2021 . Each assessment letter (one for each year’s tax assessment and a single consolidated letter for the penalties also addressed to 33 Harry Stokes Road states: “What to do if you disagree If you disagree with this notice of assessment, you can appeal. To do this, you need to write to us within 30 days of the date of this assessment, telling us why you think our decision was wrong. “ (5) Telephone attendance note dated 15 December 2021which records contact having been made by the Appellant on that date. The note records that the Appellant had stated that he was not aware of the HICBC “and received letters and now receiving the payment demands from external debt collector”. (6) The Appellant’s letter of appeal received by HMRC on28 January 2022 . In that letter reference is made to the telephone call to HMRC on15 December 2021 . The salient parts of the letter read: “My partner … and I were not notified of the change in the system at all. Although we became aware of the change in eligibility rules, we were under the assumption that any children born prior to the changes continued to be entitled. Hence, not claiming for our second child … born in 2013. No letter, record or any correspondence was received from HMRC to essentially request that higher earners will not be liable for this benefit over£60k … This is particularly disconcerting as it took 7 years for us to receive any correspondence (to February 2021) … We therefore ask you to cease recovery through the 2 debt recovery agencies LCS and ADVANTIS who have persistently chased this debt by phone and text message … … can you also please stop sending us demands for each separate year in the post.”
“I can’t remember receiving the 30 day letter. My wife was heavily pregnant. Tough pregnancy. Not at the forefront of our minds we had our life to deal with. Baby was born on10 August 2021 . Wife was 38 and the pregnancy was high risk … bleeding a lot Type 2 diabetes. First aware of the assessments was in January 2022 when wrote the letter. Inundated with self-assessment letters, felt like spam. … [JABKC - when first contacted by the bailiffs] Would have been over 2021, calling text messages 12 months of pressure. Receiving letters for 9 months. Had birth of daughter New-born baby other priorities, constant calling.”