Slowly but surely, states are beginning to realize that corporate income tax can do a lot more good for their citizens if its actually remaining in the state, and not being funnelled through some loophole or tax-avoidance scheme. Montana is the next on the list to attack the problem, after state Sen. Ron Erickson introduced Senate Bill 36 yesterday, which “is aimed at stopping efforts by large corporations that have found complex ways by setting up foreign offices to avoid or lower the amount of taxes they pay in this country.”

How did this legislation come about? Why, Wal-Mart, of course. In fact, Erickson passed out copies of a 2007 Wall Street Journal article to the Senate Taxation Committee, an article that detailed how Wal-Mart had opened an office in Florence, Italy, specifically for the purpose of evading taxes. According to the Journal, Wal-Mart’s office in Italy was its only operating unit of a real estate subsidiary that controls billions of dollars of its property in U.S. states and was able to avoid U.S. taxes.

Erickson said he shops at a market in Missoula on southwest Higgins Avenue owned by a man named Jim Edwards, whose store competes against Wal-Mart. “Jim Edwards does not have a back pocket in Florence, Italy,” Erickson said. “If we want to be fair to the Jim Edwardses of Missoula, we have to make sure everyone’s paying their fair share.”

We’ve documented Wal-Mart’s state tax avoidance attempts before, and closing the loophole in Montana appears would save the state about $2.5 million per year. It doesn’t sound like a huge sum, but then again Montana’s budget isn’t going to compare to California or Illinois or New York anyway. As the Wall Street Journal noted then:

The Illinois Department of Revenue objected to the Italian tax maneuver, demanding $26.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties. Wal-Mart paid the amount in dispute and then sued the state for a refund, according to a complaint filed in May in Illinois Circuit Court in Springfield.

The Illinois case is ongoing.

Missoula senator seeks to raise corporate taxes by closing loopholes [Missoulian]

Read the rest of this story ...

BUSTED!!!

Actually, as a recently joined member of Netflix, I have to admit I might not be impartial on this story. After all, they do deliver movies right to my door, allowing me to overcome my lifelong fear of video stores.

But that aside, the lawsuit appears to be some pretty serious stuff. From the Los Angeles Times:

The two companies agreed in 2005 that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, would close its online rental business and refer customers to Netflix, which would promote Wal-Mart’s DVD movie sales, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Sounds like a case of a couple companies engaging in some “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” behavior. The complaint suggests clandestine meetings, beginning with a dinner shared by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and then-Wal-Mart.com CEO John Fleming in January 2005, in which discussions began as to how the two could reduce competition in the DVD sales and online DVD rental markets. You can check out the whole complaint here. Its like reading The Bourne Identity...if it was written by lawyers. Bland, legalese-loving lawyers. But seriously, it is pretty interesting, and at 24 pages its not tooooo long, so check it out.

Wal-Mart, Netflix sued over online video rentals [Reuters]

Wal-Mart, Netflix conspired to create monopoly, suit alleges [Bloomberg via Los Angeles Times]

Resnick v. Wal-Mart, Netflix (Complaint)

Something about oil not meeting viscosity levels? The report doesn’t pack a ton of information, however, it appears that Wal-Mart has been selling low-quality gear oil in violation of California law. You can check out the whole article below...In total, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay over $350,000 in civil penalties and attorney fees.

DA settles consumer protection lawsuit [Vacaville Reporter]

The Solano County District Attorney’s Office joined with DA’s in Napa, Monterey, Shasta and Sonoma counties to settle a consumer protection action against Wal-Mart and Warren Oil.

According to District Attorney Dave Paulson, the complaint alleged Wal-Mart and Warren Oil—the manufacturer of Wal-Mart SuperTech Gear Oil—sold gear oil that did not meet advertised viscosity levels, a violation of California law.

“Wal-Mart and Warren cooperated with prosecutors during the investigation and agreed to undertake additional testing procedures in order to comply with law,” Paulson announced Monday.

Some 5,000 bottles of the non-compliant gear oil were sold in California.

Read the rest of this story ...

We thought this story was over last week when Wal-Mart fessed up to charging illegal sales tax in Connecticut. We were wrong.

The Hartford Courant is reporting that, despite acknowledging the wrongdoing and vowing to change its ways when it comes to double-charging sales tax, the message has yet to filter down to, you know, the people that matter. Namely, employees. The following is an excerpt from a letter submitted to the Courant:

I find it absolutely incredible that no salesperson knew the “corrected” policy. I hope the assistant manager refunded my sales tax because she really knew it was the right thing to do, or if she just did it to please the customer.  In any case, I’m happy I got my money back. Of course, it’s not the money, it was the principal of the whole thing. I’m still amazed at the whole thing and it has “tainted” my thoughts of their store and my willingness to continue shopping there.

I’d say this was a one-time deal, and we’ll never read about these sales tax shenanigans again. But…

The Courant has forwarded the complaint to the Connecticut Consumer Protection Commission.

Despite promise of reform, Wal-Mart still violating Connecticut tax laws [Hartford Courant]

Read the rest of this story ...

A Wal-Mart employee in Oregon has accused Wal-Mart of demoting her because - of all things - she took time off during the Christmas shopping season to undergo an emergency hysterectomy.

According to her complaint, which was filed last week in Oregon’s federal district court, Lynda deBarros had worked for Wal-Mart since mid-2000 and over the last 8 years had received consistently positive evaluations resulting in increased responsibilities. She had advanced from photo technician to assistant manager, and then was transferred to a new store to oversee its construction.

DeBarros began experiencing health problems in October 2007, of which I will let The Oregonian do the describing:

On Nov. 14, 2007, deBarros went to her gynecologist because of excessive menstrual bleeding, documents show. DeBarros “had a strong family history of cancer and was very worried that cancer was the cause of her excessive vaginal bleeding.” On Dec. 3, 2007, her doctor recommended an emergency hysterectomy, which was scheduled for Dec. 10. When deBarros notified her boss, Kenneth Hutchison, about her medical condition, the suit said, he scolded her and told her to go to the doctor on her time, not his.

The moral of the story is apparently this: don’t have emergency health issues during the holidays, as deBarros was advised to postpone the procedure because it was Wal-Mart’s “busiest time of the season” and they needed all hands on deck. All that excessive bleeding she was experiencing? Yeah, you just tough that out until the holiday shopping season is over...you’ll have plenty of time for your emergency surgery after the new year.

Two weeks after returning from FMLA leave, deBarros was demoted from her assistant manager position to a simple associate position. This is the second time in two months an FMLA case has made news in a major state paper - in October a West Virginia woman filed suit against Wal-Mart alleging she was wrongfully fired after she used her FMLA leave to care for her young son who had a rare bowel disorder, requiring 12 months of hospitalization and several surgeries. Despite working for Wal-Mart since 1994 with positive evaluations, Arlene Jett was reprimanded for absenteeism after taking her first FMLA leave. Both cases are ongoing.

Employee in Oregon sues Wal-Mart [The Oregonian]

Read the rest of this story ...

A Missouri City (Texas) woman convicted of a sex crime is out to prove that she has rights after being fired from her job at Wal-Mart.

Rebecca Vlasek, she of the inspiring mug shot, has filed suit claiming discrimination against our little Wal-Mart. Why you ask? Well, I’ll tell you.

Picture it: Brenham, Texas...1999. A sultry high school teacher pleads guilty to felony sexual assault of a minor. The charge: having a relationship with a 14-year-old female student. The result: 10 years on probation and the thrill of getting to register as an official pervert within the state of Texas. You can check out her rap sheet here and here.

So why is Vlasek complaining now? Well Wal-Mart, it turns out, discovered some time ago that it has quite a few sexual offenders working within its friendly confines. And, as it also turns out, every so often one of these offenders decides to, how shall we say, engage in some recidivism? Like this, and this...AND this........AANNNND this.

The result is that Wal-Mart, since adopting a new criminal background check policy, has fired approximately 800 employees who are registered sex offenders. Vlasek (pictured more recently), however, isn’t complaining about those that were fired...no, she’s complaining about the 25 or more (male, she claims) employee offenders Wal-Mart ISN’T firing. That’s right - according to her complaint, Vlasek is alleging that she has received disparate treatment because of her gender. We’ll see whether the court buys the arguments that Vlasek was fired not just because she “had relations” with a 14-year-old girl but because she is a woman...AND that Wal-Mart retained those other 25 or so offenders specifically because they’re men, and not for some other reason.

Read the rest of this story ...

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) has agreed to hear a complaint by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW Canada) accusing Wal-Mart of engaging in unfair labor practices as defined by Saskatchewan law. What’s more, the SLRB has ruled that Wal-Mart’s actions outside the province of Saskatchewan can be taken into account in assessing whether it is engaging in unfair labor actions within the province.

This means that the SLRB can take into account the example of Jonquiere, Quebec, when ruling on UFCW Canada’s complaint. It was in that small town, just over 100 miles north of Quebec City, that Wal-Mart announced it was going to shut its doors after workers voted to make the Jonquiere store the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The closure put 190 employees out of work, served as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who may have considered unionization against the company’s wishes.

Board chair James Seibel said the board was not required to determine whether Wal-Mart had acted illegally in Quebec to consider whether its actions “intimidated employees in Saskatchewan” from exercising their right under the province’s Trade Union Act to “organize and be represented by a bargaining agent of their choosing.”

“The fact that the actions of Wal-Mart upon which the allegations are based were committed outside the geographic confines of Saskatchewan does not mean that they cannot constitute (a) violation of the restriction on intimidation of its employees in the province,” Seibel ruled.

As the UFCW Canada complaint moves forward in Saskatchewan, it will be interesting to see if Wal-Mart’s actions in Quebec play a significant role - the company’s labor issues have yet to fade away there. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees:

The ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks for Wal-Mart in Canada. The company recently shut down a second operation in Quebec – a tire and lube shop in Gatineau – after failing to stop a union contract from being imposed there. Meanwhile, a Supreme Court of Canada case arising from the Jonquiere closure is scheduled to be heard within months.

We’ll keep you posted.

Wal-Mart actions in Quebec intimidate employees elsewhere [National Union of Public and General Employees]

Read the rest of this story ...