This paper examines the legal issues raised in the celebrated Royal Mail Case and the implications of the case for the practice today. It is argued, contrary to the literature, that the case was not about the utilization of secret reserves, but about the non‐disclosure of repayments by the Inland Revenue of overprovisions for tax and that defence counsel for the auditor succeeded because of the weak factual case presented by the prosecution. The paper then argues that whilst the factual basis of the prosecution's case was extremely weak, they had missed three fundamental points: the going concern concept, the materiality concept, and the point at which an overprovision for taxation should be recognized. Various minor issues in the case are also analysed, together with the effect they had on the outcome of the case. The implications of the case are then examined and in particular, the duties of auditors where compliance with statutory disclosure provisions conflicts with the requirement to show a true and fair view and whether cases involving technical accounting issues should be heard by specialist judges and assessor