Moses Mukuna v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1020 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments (2016/17–2018/19), closure notices (2019/20–2021/22) and a Schedule 24 penalty for deliberate inaccuracies arising from large expense claims by Mr Mukuna. The First-tier Tribunal found Officer Bennett made a valid discovery under s29(5) TMA, the closure notices were valid, and the appellant failed to prove he had been overcharged because contemporaneous documentary evidence was lacking or inconsistent. The tribunal also found the appellant’s conduct was deliberate, so the penalty was properly imposed and no special reduction was justified, and the appeals were dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal held that a discovery under s29(5) TMA can be valid where a hypothetical officer, acting on the information in the return, could not reasonably be expected to be aware of the insufficiency; where a taxpayer cannot substantiate claimed deductions with contemporaneous documentation and provides inconsistent or rounded figures, the tribunal may find the taxpayer has not discharged the burden of proof on overcharge and may infer deliberate behaviour for penalty purposes.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal noted (obiter) that secondary evidence consisting of an HMRC officer’s file review, rather than calling the original assessing officer, may be insufficient to show what the assessing officer actually considered at the time of discovery. It also observed that claimed factors such as rodent destruction of documents, pandemic conditions and financial difficulty will not automatically amount to "special circumstances" warranting penalty reduction absent persuasive evidence.