AVForums 
It tells you on the Guardians website - the Scott Trust was set up in 1932 to avoid Death Duties and Inheritance Tax. The Guardian has been proudly avoiding tax since 1932. 
The Scott Trust: values and history
"The Scott Trust is the sole shareholder in Guardian Media Group and its profits are reinvested in journalism and do not benefit a proprietor or shareholders."
Just like any other Trust then  That is the purpose of such a construct officially. Their behaviour has been one and continues to be on of seeking the most tax efficient way of handling its affairs.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have no issues with that at all. What I do have an issue with is the hypocracy behind it like. I’m all up for tax avoidance.
The trust, like any other trust, protects the assets. For example protects against reckless spending, the assets can be exempt from certain taxes, protection against creditors or lawsuits other stuff.
Also the trust and assets therein are held by a third party and cannot be touched or changed by anyone. The Guardian newspaper is part of the assets within the trust and is also cash poor.
Being cash strapped and not allowed to make any profits means not paying any taxes. The Guardian journalists wages are paid through the third-party trust but are quite capable, like any other newspaper journalist, of compiling articles on any subject.
So I cannot get all this hypocrisy talk aimed at the Guardian but not at any other newspaper journalists.
Because the Guardian takes an extreme, holier than thou, sanctimonious line on tax avoidance, and despite it's potential "independence" from editorial control, chooses to be every bit as left wing as the Daily Mail is right wing. It employs journalists such as Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee, unashamed socialists (although Toynbee is of the champagne variety, being a multi millionaire and owning a villa in Tuscany, natch). It also had Seumas Milne as an editor until he took hiscurrent post as right hand hatchet man and Marxist spiritual guru to Corbyn.
It was the Guardian which proudly outed the Paradise Papers, which is fine, but if it's going to preach on tax dodging then it needs to be whiter than white itself, which it's not. Hence the hypocrisy. It's not accurate to say it doesn't pay because it doesn't make a profit - GMG invests money via a legal offshore Cayman Islands shell company, and for instance made a profit of circa £300 Million on selling it's shareholding in Autotrader.
Because of the offshore tax structure, they paid zero corporation tax on that deal.
Because I don’t disagree with tax avoidance. Yet the guardian does, as many on here, and like many on here when you scratch the surface they do it themselves. That is just hypocracy.
I have an ISA. Am I a tax avoider?
Yes, hence there being no stigma attached to tax avoidance using channels as they were intended to be used... 
We are all tax avoiders.
It's just that some of us are more honest about it than others.