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

Reform UK Labels Tice’s £91,000 Tax Dispute as a ‘Minor Administrative Oversight’

Reform UK has described a recent tax controversy involving its deputy leader Richard Tice’s property firm as ‘a minor administrative oversight.’ The Sunday Times reported that the company, which Tice established and managed, omitted £91,000 in tax payments prior to distributing dividends to him and his Jersey-based trust. Tice has framed the oversight as a ‘technicality,’ asserting that ‘overall HMRC received the correct amount of tax due.’

“Any tax that would have not been paid or underpaid by the company paying the dividend… would then have been overpaid by Richard himself in the form of income tax,” Yusuf said. “So it does look like HMRC netted off in the same way.”

Labour, however, has characterized the issue as ‘a major scandal that undermines Richard Tice’s integrity and credibility.’ The party’s spokesperson emphasized that Tice must clarify whether his business adhered to legal requirements and fully remitted the tax owed. Last month, Labour’s chair Anna Turley wrote to HMRC following the Sunday Times’ claim that Tice had ‘avoided nearly £600,000 in corporation tax’ via his property company.

At a Westminster press conference, Tice defended his company’s actions, stating it was ‘a UK company paying UK tax in accordance with UK laws.’ He argued there was no ‘obligation’ to pay the highest possible tax and questioned the moral imperative to do so. ‘How many friends of yours would voluntarily choose to pay more tax than they are legally obliged to do?’ he asked journalists.

“The idea that morally, we have got to pay the maximum tax we possibly can – therein lies the road to ruin for the UK as an economy.”

HMRC has remained noncommittal, stating it ‘neither confirms nor denies investigations’ and ‘cannot comment on identifiable individuals.’ Meanwhile, Tice’s company, Quidnet REIT Limited, focuses on property investments. The Sunday Times highlighted that it ‘did not pay a required 20 per cent levy on [its] dividends … before channelling profits to Tice and his trust registered in Jersey.’