We asked Mr Tice for comment.

It would be nice if politicians responded to reports like this with something like: that looks interesting; I'll look into it, and thanks for bringing it to my attention.

But instead we got the usual deflection:

April 11, 2026 - 19:46 UTC

7
4
202
Your response is lacking only the 🔥emoji.
0
0
0
Gabriel Pogrund at The Sunday Times originally found this story. And he was more successful than us getting an explanation out of Mr Tice.

It seems Mr Tice's view is that *he* paid income tax, so it doesn't matter that Quidnet didn't. That's not how it works.
6
1
227
🤦‍♀️
0
0
1
First we don't know how much tax Mr Tice and his offshore trust paid, and if overall HMRC received the "correct" amount of tax.
1
0
73
Well done Dan
0
0
3
Tice the off shore funded tax grifter???
0
0
1
Excellent work
0
0
3
Absolutely. REID companies are not the same as trading companies
0
0
0
The MP for Dubai is on the edge of dishonesty in Public Office.The Speaker should seek an inquiry in to his shenanigans.
0
0
0
Out of professional curiosity. When did you ask for a response from Mr Tice or his representatives and when did you get the response you posted? (date and time tags are unclear)
0
0
0
Well, Mr Lewis, that deflection attempt flew wide of the mark.

Seems you’ve been taking lessons from Pam Bondi in front of the Judiciary Committee.
0
0
0
Interesting choice of solicitor: specialising in libel and defamation.
0
0
0
Interesting reply from Mark Lewis. Not a tax lawyer. If I had a query from you I'd get a tax lawyer to reply, not a "well known media litigator." Loving the completely redundant ad hom attack too!
1
0
3
It seemed a bit undignified from a lawyer. Just knockabout.
1
0
4