Tice £91,000 tax row is ‘minor administrative error’, party claims

Tice £91,000 Tax Dispute Labeled ‘Minor Administrative Error’ by Party

Reform UK has asserted that a recent tax controversy involving deputy leader Richard Tice’s property firm constitutes a “minor administrative error”. The Sunday Times revealed that Tice’s company, which he established and controlled, omitted £91,000 in taxes before distributing profits to him and his offshore Jersey trust. Tice has framed the issue as a “technicality”, arguing that “HMRC ultimately received the correct amount of tax due”.

Labour has contested this view, calling the situation a “major scandal” that challenges Tice’s “integrity and credibility”. A Labour representative stated, “This is a major scandal which goes to the heart of Richard Tice’s integrity and credibility. Reform cannot ignore it.” They further demanded, “Richard Tice urgently needs to explain whether his business followed the law and paid the full tax it owed.”

“We neither confirm nor deny investigations and we cannot comment on identifiable individuals,” said a HMRC spokesperson. The statement leaves the tax authority’s stance on the matter ambiguous.

Quidnet REIT Limited, Tice’s company, focuses on property investments. The Sunday Times highlighted that it “did not pay a required 20 per cent levy on its dividends” before transferring earnings to Tice and his trust. Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, acknowledged the oversight but dismissed it as “a non story”, explaining that “any tax not paid by the company would be covered by Richard’s personal income tax payments.”

“Overall HMRC received the correct amount of tax due,” Tice noted in an X post. He framed the report as “effectively complaining I paid too much tax rather than [my] company pay some tax on my behalf.”

Last month, Labour’s chair Anna Turley initiated an inquiry with HMRC after the Sunday Times claimed Tice had “avoided nearly £600,000 in corporation tax” through his property company. At a Westminster press conference, Tice emphasized that Quidnet REIT Ltd “was a UK company paying UK tax in accordance with UK laws”, asserting there was “no obligation” to pay the highest possible tax rate. He posed a rhetorical question to journalists: “How many friends of yours would voluntarily choose to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to do?”

Tice argued that the idea of “paying the maximum tax possible” risks economic harm, suggesting it “lies at the road to ruin for the UK as an economy”. His defense highlights a potential discrepancy between legal requirements and moral expectations, framing the issue as a matter of compliance rather than exploitation.