"Ed Sheeran" isn't a person. There is a person by that name, but when you high "Ed Sheeran" you don't address the check to him. It goes to a production company who then deducts associated expenses, from his personal trainer to his airfare. That company then pays the flesh-and-blood Sheeran a salary for services rendered. If he is anything like the other 99% of celebs, he keeps money in his production company and pays himself a salary low enough to meet his immediate needs, thereby avoiding or at least delaying income tax. This company will continue to pay him this salary long after he disappears from public life and, theoretically, could be making payments to his estate long after his death. Should he want more money for something like a house, as the only shareholder, he can issue to himself a dividend and pay income tax on that amount when it hits his personal account. Or he can take the money as a loan, and delay those taxes until later. Or his production company can "invest in real estate" by buying the house and renting it to him for dollar a year.

Celebs are not people. They are businesses.

The people who really get shafted on taxes are the like of professional athletes. The services they render their employers occur at very fixed times. They don't get to spread their income over decades as entertainers do.

The article is talking specifically about his company, Ed Sheeran Ltd, not his personal taxes.

I doubt that and I'd like to see a source to back that asertion up.

Here's one for Ed paying more than Amazon

https://www.fastcompany.com/90251523/ed-sheeran-paid-more-uk...

Not really. Sure it's different taxes but for the revenue Amazing should be paying a much higher share of its profits and it does.