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.
Richard Le Tocq, head of Locate Guernsey, discusses the chancellor’s approach to high net worth individuals, and why relocation is increasingly attractive to HNWIs
The firm says that the U-turn 'does not alter the need for a fundamental review of the way we tax work' and that the current tax system is in need of reform
Legislation on the NICs changes to be brought forward in the autumn following publication of 'the full effects of the changes to Class 2 and Class 4' in the summer
Following chancellor Philip Hammond’s Spring Budget speech, we explore the key takeaways for businesses and individuals