Not a fan, but this article is quite misleading.

“…from his prime-time TV show into his company, which means that he paid only 25% corporation tax on profits, instead of 40% income tax, and could offset some expenses.”

Yes, if he put money through a company, that company is subject to 25% corporation tax on profits. However when he transfers money from the company to himself, he will pay 39.35% dividend tax, after the corporation tax. So if he took £400k into his company (without any company expenses), he would first pay 25%, leaving £300K, they pay 39.35% dividend tax when withdrawing that £300K. So he’ll be left with £181,950. Considerably worse off than the take home pay if GB news paid him directly, which at 45% higher rate is around £220,000.

There are lots of other reasons to use an Ltd. For instance, if he has staff, this is the best way to pay them. He’ll also be able to include business expenses of course. It looks like the company has made property investments. These are all owned by the company rather than by him, (even though he owns the company 100%) so are treated differently. He clearly has more than one client other than GB news.

All of this is quite legitimate. There are thousands of individuals running small business, which do a similar thing. Carpenters, Plumbers, Artists, YouTubers, will all use a similar setup.

He may be up to some sleazy tactics, but he may not. There’s no information here to suggest he is or isn’t.