Iain was called to the Bar in 2006 and his practice focuses on contentious tax, fraud and investigations. He has litigated several of the leading cases on HMRC investigative powers, VAT fraud, and the Knowledge/Means of Knowledge tests.
Iain manages a wide variety of work for an international client base, ranging from UHNWIs to PLCs and owner-managed businesses to trusts and funds. He is often sought out by other legal and professional advisors for a second opinion and to help ‘unlock’ long-running or complex disputes.
Before pupillage, Iain worked for HMRC Solicitor’s Office in both Excise litigation and VAT litigation. He has acted as counsel both for and against HMRC in a variety of disputes in the Tax Tribunal, Upper Tax Tribunal, High Court (Admin, ChD and Comm), Court of Appeal (Civil), House of Lords and UK Supreme Court. He became a partner at JHA in 2021 and prior to that had been a tenant at a leading set of Chambers and a Dispute Resolution Partner at a City law firm.
Called to the Bar of England & Wales, March 2006
Iain is ranked as a ‘leading partner’ for tax disputes in the Legal 500 and in Chambers and Partners.
"Iain MacWhannell is excellent. He is commercial and astute, but also personable. He is the go-to lawyer for major VAT cases.” (Legal 500 2024)
“Iain MacWhannell is a star individual. His attention to detail is remarkable, and he has a real feel for litigation tactics (and an uncanny ability to predict what HMRC’s next move will be).” (Legal 500)
“Iain MacWhannell – charming and forensically bright. He has fantastic judgment and instinctively knows the right decisions to make in complex, high value commercial litigation. As a former barrister, Iain’s tactics are at the heart of what he does and why he is so very much in demand. Revered for his knowledge and experience of FS, tax, civil fraud and injunctions work, he has a proven track record in heavy weight litigation.” (Legal 500)
“Iain MacWhannell is excellent. He has a keen eye for detail and is an excellent negotiator and litigator. Clients are in the safest of hands with Iain.” (Legal 500)
"He is organised, engaged and gives clients a level of care and attention that you just don’t get elsewhere." (Chambers and Partners)
"Iain has been extremely professional and attentive throughout. The level of knowledge he demonstrates provides a sense of calm in a very difficult situation." (Chambers & Partners)
Case Note: ‘The approach of the Tax Tribunal to evidential sampling in Kittel cases’
The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) has recently published a decision of Judge Dean on a sampling application by HMRC in the case of Ezy Solutions Ltd (in liquidation) and Milo Corporation Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00209 (TC). The Decision was released on 9 March 2023 but had not been published until recently.
HMRC applied for a Direction that the parties agree a sample of 50 Mini Umbrella Companies upon which the appeal would be determined. HMRC contended that the sample would limit the scope of the parties’ evidence in the appeal. HMRC argued that it would be disproportionate and “take [HMRC] an inordinate amount of time” serve the evidence in relation to all of the MUCs that had actually supplied the Appellant.
The Appellants argued that a representative sample could not be agreed until all of the evidence in relation to the MUCs had been served and that in a Kittel case HMRC are required to prove all of the fraud, tax losses, and connections upon which they relied.
Judge Dean refused HMRC’s application and stated at [38]:
“It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a party must know the case against it. I cannot see how in circumstances where HMRC propose not to serve the evidence which formed the basis of its decisions, the Appellants could form a view as to whether any sample is representative or whether there is commonality.”
Judge Dean also stated at [41] that she considered HMRC’s argument that serving their evidence would take “an inordinate amount of time” to be insufficient to justify their application.
More recently, in a case management decision in Horizon Contracts Limited (in liquidation) & Others v HMRC (unreported), Judge Poole followed Judge Dean’s reasoning and stated that ‘sampling’ may be “an appropriate way to proceed for the purposes of the ultimate hearing” but found that this was a matter to be resolved at a later stage once “the full evidence upon which HMRC rely has been disclosed to the Appellants”.
Iain MacWhannell, instructing David Bedenham, successfully represented an employment intermediary in an appeal against a denial of input tax and £15 million VAT assessment.
The intermediary had purchased (and on-supplied) labour from thousands of mini-umbrella companies. HMRC subsequently denied the intermediary’s input tax on the Kittel and Fini basis.
The appeal was listed for a 10 day hearing before the Tax Tribunal.
On day 1, HMRC opened their case by setting out their detailed basis for applying the Kittel and Fini principles.
On day 2, David opened the Appellant’s case. This included drawing on the extensive evidence filed on behalf of the Appellant and raising numerous other challenges to highlight the flaws in HMRC’s case.
On day 3, HMRC applied for an adjournment. That application, which was opposed by the Appellant, was refused by the Tribunal.
HMRC then announced in open court that they were withdrawing their Kittel/Fini decision and VAT assessment in full. The Tribunal then ordered HMRC to pay the Appellant’s costs.
