The Guardian responded to various such claims over the years in quite a bit of detail [1].
A choice quote:
> The Guardian's current position on tax is not immensely complicated, not least because it is not making any profits. When GMG makes taxable profits, it does of course pay full corporation tax. It is officially regarded by HMRC as "low risk".
> When we did our series on tax avoidance in 2008, we commissioned Richard Murphy, the scourge of tax dodgers the world over, to cast his eye over GMG's accounts.
> This is what he wrote:
> "Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result.
> The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested.
> The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong."
With Panama / Paradise papers as well, most players are acting just within the letter of the law, though arguably not the intent, or at least the spirit, and outside observers (typically those without access to the expertise necessary to construct their financial affairs with such tax-minimising efficiency) are going to be frustrated by the brazen appearance of unfairness.
As I noted, Spectator and other publications are going to be strongly partisan around any review of the Guardian's affairs.
OTOH, articles published by the Guardian, about the Guardian, asserting the Guardian has done nothing wrong, are going to struggle to appear impartial.
A choice quote:
> The Guardian's current position on tax is not immensely complicated, not least because it is not making any profits. When GMG makes taxable profits, it does of course pay full corporation tax. It is officially regarded by HMRC as "low risk".
> When we did our series on tax avoidance in 2008, we commissioned Richard Murphy, the scourge of tax dodgers the world over, to cast his eye over GMG's accounts.
> This is what he wrote:
> "Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result.
> The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested.
> The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/...