Emms took his case to the Special Commissioners where he argued that because he had to consume 4500 calories a day (the average male only needs 3000) to meet the physical requirements of a front row forward, he should be allowed to offset the cost of extra food and supplements against tax.

Chairman Michael Tildesley ruled that there was a ‘duality of purpose’ in regards to the consumption of the supplements and extra food: ‘The expenditure …secured enduring health benefits for the appellant …the expenditure was not incurred exclusively for employment,’ Tildesley said in his judgment.

Grant Thornton tax partner Mike Warburton, a confessed rugby fan, said props were ‘unique physical specimens’ and said it was a pity Emms had lost his case.

See financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3750