Nicholas Millican v The Commissioners for HMRC

Nicholas Millican v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Appellant performed investment management services under arrangements involving at least one partnership and carried interest arose to him under the arrangements. However, the investment management services were performed in respect of the joint venture (EPIC LLP), which was not an investment scheme, and not in respect of the Cheyne Funds. Therefore, the statutory requirement that the services be performed in respect of an investment scheme was not satisfied and the appeal is upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Nicholas Millican; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Capital Gains Tax, Carried Interest, Investment Management Services, Collective Investment Schemes, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Capital Gains Tax Carried Interest Investment Management Services Collective Investment Schemes Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Millican

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant performed investment management services directly or indirectly in respect of an investment scheme under arrangements involving at least one partnership and carried interest arose to the Appellant under the arrangements as per Section 103KA of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant performed investment management services under arrangements involving at least one partnership and carried interest arose to him under the arrangements. However, the investment management services were performed in respect of the joint venture (EPIC LLP), which was not an investment scheme, and not in respect of the Cheyne Funds. Therefore, the statutory requirement that the services be performed in respect of an investment scheme was not satisfied and the appeal is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • The Appellant's appeal is allowed.