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

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

Reform UK has maintained that the tax controversy surrounding its deputy leader Richard Tice’s property firm represents “a minor administrative error.” The Sunday Times revealed that Tice’s company, Quidnet REIT Limited, had not remitted £91,000 in tax before distributing dividends to him and his Jersey-based trust, according to the report. Despite this, Tice described the shortfall as “a technicality,” asserting that “overall HMRC received the correct amount of tax due.”

Labour criticized the situation as a “major scandal” that challenges Richard Tice’s “integrity and credibility.” A spokesperson for the party emphasized the need for Tice to clarify whether his business adhered to tax laws and settled all obligations. Last month, Labour’s chair Anna Turley had requested HMRC to scrutinize Tice’s financial affairs after the Sunday Times alleged he avoided nearly £600,000 in corporation tax through his property venture.

HMRC has declined to confirm or deny ongoing investigations, stating it cannot comment on specific individuals. Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, admitted the issue was “a minor administrative error” but dismissed it as a “non story” on Sky News. “Any tax not paid by the company would be covered by Richard himself through income tax,” Yusuf explained, suggesting HMRC effectively balanced the accounts.

At a Westminster press conference, Tice argued that Quidnet REIT Limited “is a UK company paying UK tax in accordance with UK laws.” He contended there was no “obligation” to pay the highest possible tax and questioned the wisdom of doing so. “How many of your friends would willingly pay more tax than they are legally required?” he asked journalists, implying that maximizing tax payments could harm the UK’s economic stability.

On X, Tice reiterated that the Sunday Times’s findings showed “overall HMRC received the correct amount of tax due.” He framed the report as highlighting that “the issue is not about underpayment but about whether I paid more tax than necessary.” This perspective contrasts sharply with Labour’s view that the discrepancy reflects a broader ethical concern.