Tax Tribunal Rejects 'Rodents Ate My Receipts' Defence

Summary (lede)

A bus driver's attempt to justify £28,000 in disputed tax deductions by claiming rodents had destroyed all his receipts has been dismissed by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). HMRC's discovery assessments and penalty were upheld after the tribunal found no credible evidence for the expenses, with the judge describing the appellant as "grasping at straws."

The Case in Detail

Moses Mukuna, employed by Arriva, faced HMRC discovery assessments relating to self-assessment tax returns filed between 2016 and 2022. Mukuna's claims included substantial expenses for personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic, accommodation for his family, and specialist equipment allegedly required after a traffic accident in 2016.

However, when asked for supporting documentation, Mukuna stated that all his receipts had been stored in his loft and subsequently destroyed by a rodent infestation. As a result, he was unable to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims.

HMRC concluded that:

• There was no proof that the expenses had been incurred.
• Even if they had been, the items were not necessary for the performance of Mukuna's duties as a bus driver.
• Arriva confirmed that necessary PPE was provided to staff during the pandemic at no cost, and any legitimate expenses would have been reimbursed.

HMRC assessed tax liabilities totalling £18,367 and imposed a £10,928.83 penalty, classifying Mukuna's behaviour as deliberate.

Timeline of Key Events

Date	Event
2016–2022	Mukuna files self-assessment returns with disputed expenses
7 Nov 2022	HMRC opens inquiries into Mukuna’s returns
20 Dec 2022	Mukuna claims pandemic-related and other work expenses
Mar 2023	Mukuna repeats claims, citing rodent destruction of receipts
Feb 2024	Mukuna submits further details, amounts described as "round sum" figures
Aug 2025	Tribunal judgment delivered

Tribunal Findings

Judge Nigel Popplewell dismissed the appeal, highlighting several critical issues:
• Mukuna’s explanations were inconsistent and unsubstantiated.
• The figures for claimed expenses were round sums, with no evidential basis.
• There was no correlation between claimed loans and specific purchases.
• No evidence was provided of either the rodent infestation or the destruction of records.

The tribunal's written decision concluded:

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

Quotes & Sources

Judge Nigel Popplewell stated:

“This was not careless, it was deliberate.”

Arriva, Mukuna’s employer, confirmed to HMRC that:

- PPE was provided to all staff during the pandemic.

- Any necessary work-related expenses would have been reimbursed.

HMRC's case summary noted:

“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.”

Lessons for UK Contractors

This case underscores several important points for UK contractors:
• Retain all supporting documentation: HMRC requires clear evidence for any expense claims.
• Employer provisions: If employers supply necessary equipment or reimburse expenses, claims for additional purchases are likely to be scrutinised.
• Plausibility and evidence: Unsubstantiated or implausible explanations are unlikely to succeed at tribunal.
• Penalties for deliberate behaviour: Unsupported claims can result in significant financial penalties.

Practical Steps

• Implement robust recordkeeping practices, including digital backups.
• Consult with qualified tax advisers when uncertain about claimable expenses.
• Respond promptly and substantively to HMRC inquiries.
• Avoid making claims unless you have clear, contemporaneous evidence.

Conclusion

The FTT’s decision in Mukuna’s case is a stark reminder of the importance of recordkeeping and the dangers of unsupported claims. For UK contractors and self-employed professionals, this ruling reinforces the necessity of maintaining comprehensive documentation for all tax-deductible expenses, and the risks posed by failing to do so.

Next Steps:

• Review your own expense recordkeeping processes.
• Seek professional advice on HMRC compliance.
• Ensure all claims are substantiated by credible evidence.

References:

• [Accountancy Daily: ‘Rodents ate my expenses receipts’ rejected by tax tribunal](https://www.accountancydaily.co/rodents-ate-my-expenses-receipts-rejected-tax-tribunal)