Moses Mukuna, a bus driver, has lost an appeal at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) against discovery assessments issued against expenditure claims made in his self assessment tax returns between 2016 and 2022.

Mukuna worked for Arriva during these periods, one of the largest bus operators in the UK. He was claiming expenses on personal protective equipment (PPE) bought during the pandemic, accommodation for himself and his family during covid, and also specialist equipment he deemed necessary for him to carry out his job after a traffic accident in 2016.

However, there were no receipts or any evidence for any of the purchases as Mukuna claimed he had left all of these in his loft which had been infested with rodents. The rodents had then eaten all the evidence according to Mukuna.

Because of this HMRC considered the appellant was not able to prove any of the items listed in the expenses were even bought, and even if they were, none of them were necessary to carry out the role of a bus driver.

In total, HMRC assessed Mukuna for £18,367 and issued a penalty for £10,928.83 due to his behaviour being deliberate.

After the first point of contact between HMRC and Mukuna, the bus driver told HMRC officer Bennett that he had borrowed £18,000 to spend on PPE as he was a key worker throughout the pandemic and was ‘at the forefront of exposure’.

HMRC contacted Arriva directly who confirmed Mukuna had not received any expenses from the company while employed by them over the six years. However, the company confirmed that if Mukuna did have any expenses then Arriva would have reimbursed him.

From here HMRC told the appellant he could amend his tax returns but if it was found Mukuna had acted deliberately then a penalty could be incurred.

On 7 November 2022 Bennett opened enquiries into the appellant’s tax returns as he was not able to verify any of the expenses claimed by Mukuna.

Mukuna wrote again to Bennett on 20 December 2022, saying: ‘Beginning of the year 2020, effects of the pandemic profoundly affected my line of work.

‘Being in the public sector, I was classified as an essential worker. Personal protection equipment, sorting out accommodation to protect my family, specialised cleaning detergents, and frequent discarding of clothing, not to mention psychological therapy. All added enormous cost to job expenses.’

By March 2023 Mukuna wrote to Bennett again, claiming ‘a health risk was a concern hence a discarding process followed, and a thorough cleaning performed’ and stated the expenses claimed were necessary for performing his duty to protect himself in the workplace.

The discovery assessments were made shortly after this and HMRC rejected all the expenditure that had been claimed by Mukuna apart from £60 for washing his work uniform.

Mukuna’s excuse for the expenses incurred before the pandemic was because he had to buy ‘body harnessing products, customising back support seat cover, compression socks, to enable comfort, in order to carry on with work duties’.

However, all the evidence for these purchases had also been destroyed by the rodent infestation, Mukuna claimed.

Additionally, Arriva confirmed PPE was handed out to staff during the pandemic and informed HMRC there was no other reason for Mukuna to incur any expenses to carry out his role. Although, the appellant claimed the equipment provided by Arriva was inadequate so he had to purchase his own.

HMRC viewed Mukuna’s actions as deliberately obtaining a tax advantage by claiming expenditure which he did not incur and was not entitled to. ‘This was not careless, it was deliberate,’ said Judge Nigel Popplewell.

Although Mukuna was relying on evidence of the expenses being destroyed by rodents, he could provide no evidence that this ever happened.

At the tribunal, Mukuna, who was not represented, said: ‘A taxpayer should not be penalised for events beyond his control. This included Covid and damage to the documents caused by the rodent infestation. An unintentional mistake does not automatically amount to deliberate behaviour.’

Mukuna said that the loans he had taken out were evidence of expenditure, which was dismissed by Judge Popplewell, saying the money could have been spent on anything.

‘There is no correlation between the outgoings on the one hand and the items on which those outgoings were alleged to have been incurred’, said Judge Popplewell.

‘We cannot rely on the appellant’s oral or written evidence. It seems to us that the appellant is just as uncertain of the purported expenditure as we are.

‘In his letter of 28 February 2024, he identifies what are effectively round sum amounts for a number of items of expenditure. For example, in 2020-21; £5,000 for N 95 masks, £5,500 for protective clothing, and £4,000 for anti-viral products.

‘By the time he wrote this letter his 10 documents had been purportedly eaten by rodents. We do not understand, therefore, where he obtained these figures from.

‘The fluidity of these numbers suggests to us that the appellant was grasping at straws.’

The appeal by Mukuna was dismissed.