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.
Report argues that the government must change the way it makes tax and budget decisions
Drastically fewer offices for HMRC in the hope to reduce their running costs
Tayabali Tomlin and d&t directors launch £20 a month TaxGo service, aiming to be the 'biggest UK firm' by client numbers
Companies must report on their complex financial structures including offshore accounts and notify HMRC