0 comments

---

Image above from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When Wal-Mart’s use of an intricate web of subsidiaries to avoid state taxes was discovered, the N.C. Secretary of Revenue famously sent tax lawyers and auditors after the world’s biggest retailer. With state economies strapped for cash, North Carolina is now looking to halt such shenanigans before they can start.

A proposed “combined-reporting” law would require companies with multiple subsidiaries operating in several states to file tax returns as a single business. Opponents of this legislation have given lawmakers the shivers...But in the face of the state’s biggest budget crisis since the Great Depression, combined reporting took a first step Tuesday toward becoming law. After a contentious House Finance Committee meeting, the Democrat-led committee voted along party lines to approve a larger tax package that includes combined reporting.

Combined reporting basically treats a parent company and its subsidiaries as one entity for tax purposes. A driving force behind the move was the public realization of just how much money North Carolina has been losing through loopholes in its tax laws.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

According to the Courthouse News Service, Wal-Mart has been using a sales tax loophole to swindle customers out of a full refund on returned merchandise. Basically, the lawsuit claims that when customers have purchased items at a store that charges a particular sales tax, and have returned the item at a store in an area with a lower sales tax, Wal-Mart has refused to return the difference in paid tax if the rate at the point of sale is higher than that at the store where the merchandise is being returned.

(Plaintiff John) Whitewall says he bought a Blue Ray disc player from Wal-Mart’s store in Collinsville, Ill. for $214.04, at an 8.1 percent sales tax rate. But when he returned the player to Wal-Mart’s store in Glen Carbon, Ill., he received only $211.56, because that store has a 6.85 percent sales tax.

This seems like such a small issue - $3.50 or $4 dollars on a sale - but multiplied over thousands of transactions it has the potential to add up. Wal-Mart has had similar issues with returns before - late last year the Connecticut Attorney General began looking into Wal-Mart after charges began surfacing that major retailers (most notably Wal-Mart) were violating state law by charging a second sales tax when merchandise paid for with cash was exchanged. You can refresh your memory on that story here and here.

The lawsuit was filed as a national class action, and we’ll continue checking for updates. You can read the complaint here. The lawsuit is seeking actual damages, plus any additional damages the court would deem appropriate - read: punitive damages in an amount high enough to make Wal-Mart consider changing its practices.

It’s unclear if the plaintiff has examples beyond his own - the complaint mentions only the Blu-ray player purchase - but I have to believe they have additional plaintiffs. A class action based on one case is, after all, not really in much danger of moving forward as a class action.

Class Sues Wal-Mart Over Returns Policy [Courthouse News Service]

0 comments

---

To sum up: Wal-Mart cheated on its taxes, got caught, appealed its fines, lost the appeal, appealed THAT loss, and now has been told to go home again. Wal-Mart’s tax avoidance case in North Carolina, the breakthrough case that spawned a huge Wall Street Journal series, caused several state governments to re-examine their tax laws, and made REIT a household name, has taken another turn against the retail giant as the North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled against them again:

“The Secretary acted within his lawful authority when he assessed additional taxes against plaintiff as a result of the combination of plaintiff with two related entities,” wrote NC Court of Appeals Judge Donna Stroud in her opinion.

Earlier this year, at the trial court level, Judge Clarence Horton ruled against Wal-Mart in its case filed back in 2006. Wal-Mart was seeking a refund of the over $30 million it was assessed by the North Carolina Department of Revenue for its use of a “captive REIT” tax strategy. In denying Wal-Mart’s claims then, Horton wrote:

“[Wal-Mart does] not deny the facts demonstrating the circular journey taken by the ‘rents’ paid by these plaintiffs, but contend[s] that on each leg of the journey [Wal-Mart was] only taking advantage of a lawful deduction afforded them by then-existing tax law. Such a piecemeal approach exalts form over substance, however …”

That’s twice now - at the trial court level and in the appeals court - that Wal-Mart’s attempt to recoup its tax money has been denied. You can find more background on the REIT strategy on our blog here, or in our tax report here (which also lays out several other tax avoidance schemes used by the company).

Wal-Mart loses appeal to get $30M in North Carolina tax refunds [Triangle Business Journal]

32 comments

---

Yesterday, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) became the first Senate Democrat to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. But when later allowed to elaborate, she left the door open for her to eventually get on board a revised version of the legislation.

It looked bleak early on - as the Washington Post reported, Senator Lincoln didn’t mince words when stating whether she still supported the Employee Free Choice Act legislation that she had voted for back in 2007:

“I cannot support that bill,” Lincoln told the club, one attendee recounted to Arkansas Business. “Cannot support that bill in its current form. Cannot support and will not support moving it forward in its current form.”

But as the day moved forward, Senator Lincoln did soften her stance - if only a bit - after listing several issues she hoped to tackle in 2009:

“Even though the Employee Free Choice Act is not on this priority list, it is receiving a lot of attention in the news and is the focus of many of my conversations with constituents on both sides of the issue. I consider both the labor and the business communities to be my friends. However, now that we need all hands on deck, including business and labor, to get our economy moving again, this issue is dividing us...I am stating today that I cannot support Employee Free Choice Act in its current form and I can’t support efforts to bring it to Senate consideration in its current form. I will consider alternatives that have the support of both business and labor but my pledge today is to focus my full attention on the priorities I have mentioned that affect every working family in Arkansas.”

Why is Senator Lincoln’s vote so important? Her defection would make it increasingly difficult for supporters of the bill to get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and help it to move forward under Senate rules. Not surprisingly, Lincoln’s shift towards the right - she has also recently made news for teaming with Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to push a provision that would slash the controversial estate tax rate (or “death tax” if you’re a Republican or just a pessimist) - just happens to come as she looks towards a 2010 reelection bid in Arkansas, Wal-Mart’s home state. And we all know what Wal-Mart thinks of EFCA.

Read the rest of this story ...

29 comments

---

Colorado’s state legislature has decided that it really, REALLY doesn’t want Wal-Mart to even remotely have the opportunity to use a certain state corporate income tax avoidance scheme. The scheme in question is the now oft-talked about captive REIT, or captive real estate investment trust. If captive REIT sounds familiar, that would of course be because the Wall Street Journal broke the news in early 2007 that Wal-Mart was in effect paying rent to itself on its own store properties, and then deducting that rent from its state income taxes. For more of our own coverage, you can check this out. It should be noted that Wal-Mart lost the original lawsuit in North Carolina that sparked debate on the whole REIT issues earlier this month.

Anywho, back to Colorado - our beautiful 38th state and birthplace of the mouth-watering rocky mountain oyster phenomenon. Yesterday, the Colorado House Finance Committee supported a bill that would prevent businesses from taking advantage of the REIT scheme. Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, introduced the legislation, citing the previously mentioned WSJ piece to drive home why the bill was necessary.

What has Levy so upset is that even though the money stayed within the corporation, Colorado could potentially lose millions of dollars in tax revenue. While Levy has been unable to yet find examples of the practice taking place in Colorado, she said House Bill 1093 protects the state from lost revenues if a business were to implement the strategy.

You know what else would help keep businesses from using tax schemes like this? Becoming a state that uses combined reporting, which essentially treats a parent company and its subsidiaries as one company for state income tax purposes. Why did Rep. Levy choose to push this legislation instead of combined reporting? Well, you see, because Colorado already is a combined reporting state. Better to be safe than sorry is as good a saying as any to follow, however, and from glancing over Colorado’s combined reporting requirements, it would appear that filing a combined report wouldn’t necessarily be mandatory. So cheers to Colorado for covering all the bases...if only all statehouses were so thorough.

Closing tax loopholes [Denver Daily News]

Read the rest of this story ...

8 comments

---

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 ...

6 comments

---

A pair of stories - infant formula in Texas and continuing tax issues in Connecticut.

First, from Texas. Texas Wal-Marts are asking customers to check the dates on any infant formula sold within the state, after the office of the Attorney General learned that the retail giant had been selling expired product. There doesn’t appear to be a lawsuit on the horizon...the AG’s office simply asked Wal-Mart to remove the expired formula from shelves, inform customers, and make restitution. That most likely means refunds, but state penalties are not out of the question either.

The second story comes from Connecticut, where the neverending double taxation story has gotten life breathed back into it yet again. Here is our most recent post on the subject. And this, from the Hartford Courant:

Sue Drobinski of New Britain says that despite Wal-Mart entering into an agreement to follow state laws on taxes involving even exchanges, its employees in New Britain are not following the law.

I sent her email to state Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr. this morning, who has responded that his legal department will contact Wal-Mart to bring up this and other similar complaints.

Read on for more on both stories…

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

Just catching up on more stories from the holiday season. This from West Virginia - a whole gaggle of new tax laws will be taking effect in the new year are designed to save businesses money and create jobs? Sounds like there must be a catch, right?

According to State Tax Commissioner Christopher Morris, both the business franchise tax and the corporate net income tax rates are being lowered under the changes. In addition, businesses can get tax credits for creating jobs that are full-time, pay at least $32,000 and offer health benefits. Companies are limited in the number of created jobs they can can receive tax credits for, but every little bit helps, right? C’mon Wal-Mart...we know West Virginia is now a combined reporting state, so you can’t pull your little tax shenanigans there anymore, so why not create a few new full-time jobs, throw in some benefits, and save a little money in the process?

W.Va. Businesses Expected to Save Money Under New Tax Laws [WSAZ NewsChannel 3]

Read the rest of this story ...

22 comments

---

New York’s Governor called for a host of new fees and taxes yesterday, including an “iPod tax” that taxes the sale of downloaded music and other “digitally delivered entertainment services.”

The Governor’s new budget for 2009 includes 88 new fees plus a bunch of other new taxes on anything from soda, beer, wine and cigars to movie tickets, taxi rides, and massages. According to the NY Daily News, It would also extend sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and remove the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110. So no more grabbing a box of stogies and hitting the local cinaplex for me, I guess...well, assuming I lived in New York. Which I don’t.

That the “iPod tax” actually refers to Apple’s popular product by name would cause one to infer that Governor Paterson has it out for frequenters of the iStore. In actuality, however, MacWorld points out that the title is a little misleading.

It’s not a tax on iPods, but rather the levying of state and local sales taxes for “digitally delivered entertainment services.” The iTunes Store would seem to be a prime target there, but Amazon, Wal-mart, and other retailers would take a hit from the proposed tax as well.

We’ll see if Wal-Mart and the rest flex their mighty lobbying muscles on this. While at least 16 states plus DC already have taxes of this nature, California shot down a similar proposal earlier this year.

New York governor proposes digital download tax [MacWorld]

Read the rest of this story ...

9 comments

---

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 ...

14 comments

---

We’ve covered Wal-Mart’s wage and hour (and overtime) issues many times over, culminating with last week’s $54 million settlement in Minnesota. We all get that Wal-Mart would prefer its employees work through breaks. And we certainly know that when it comes to paying employees for overtime, well, Wal-Mart would prefer that be optional.

California wage laws are, not surprisingly, fairly strict. And now, with that state facing a financial shortfall, the LA Times is reporting that business groups and GOP lawmakers are using wage and hour law as a bargaining chip in negotiations over how to fix a $14.8-billion hole in the state budget. The argument is that state laws like those in California - the ones mandating breaks for workers working at least 6 hours in succession, and requiring an employer to pay time-and-a-half once a worker has worked more than 8 hours in day - are expensive for employers to follow and force them to flee the state for friendlier confines. Places where breaks are voluntary [for the employer] and overtime exists only in a fantasy dreamland.

Not surprisingly, California Democrats and labor officials in the state disagree.

Employers’ latest efforts to tie both the meal break and overtime issue to contentious budget negotiations are aimed at reversing basic worker rights, said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation.

“It’s about trying to help Wal-Mart and other big corporations get away from the long-established understanding that people should get a meal break at work” or be paid extra for extra hours, Pulasksi said.

“This has nothing to do with the budget or stimulating the economy,” said Barry Broad, a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and other labor unions. “It doesn’t help the economy to lower 20 million people’s wages during a recession.”

It has been suggested that if state lawmakers can’t come to a consensus and close out these budget negotiations, a state government shutdown in the spring is a distinct possibility.

Overtime pay, rest breaks become bargaining chips in state budget crisis [LA Times]

Read the rest of this story ...

8 comments

---

What he said:

Spokesman Dan Fogleman said Monday evening that although he has no idea what Connecticut sales tax law is, his company is following it.

What his replacement would later say after the Connecticut AG asked him to please, try again:

“We thoroughly reviewed our practices and have taken steps to ensure that our associates are fully complying with Connecticut law when processing even exchanges,” [Wal-Mart spokeswoman] Ashley Hardie said in an e-mail.

I don’t know who this “Ashley Hardie” is, or what she did with my main man Dan, but I really don’t care for her “thorough reviews” or her guarantees that “steps are being taken” to insure compliance. In fact, I’d greatly appreciate it if she just started opening her mouth and letting the words flow, much like Dan used to do. Dan was so much more fun. Dan doesn’t know Connecticut law, but did Dan let that stop him? No. No he didn’t. Dan sat in Arkansas and spun tales of big, benevolent Wal-Mart spreading cheer and helping people afford Christmas, completely incapable of breaking any law known to man. And even if they did, he said, its Connecticut’s fault for having such CRAZY laws in the first place. Well, actually, that was Wal-Mart and not just Dan that said that:

Wal-Mart Stores even had posters behind courtesy desks blaming the state for its policy. “State law PROHIBITS Wal-Mart from refunding SALES TAX to any customer returning or exchanging merchandise without an original purchase receipt,” the “tax refund laws” posters said.

Unfortunately, that isn’t what the law says:

However, state tax laws clearly say the opposite, state Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell Jr. said Wednesday in an interview explaining the out-of-court settlement he reached with Wal-Mart. State laws mandate that if a company has an exchange policy, it cannot charge a second sales tax on the new item. Wal-Mart’s website clearly says it has such an exchange policy.

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

Falling sales-tax revenues. An onslaught of vacant storefronts. When your state economy is based on growth, and the national economy goes in the tank, these are the dangers. According to yesterday’s Arizona Republic:

By late next year, more than 75 stores are expected to close, resulting in a loss of nearly 2,000 Arizona retail jobs. The turnover likely will offer shoppers bargains at various going-out-of-business sales and could eventually inspire an influx of newer, trendier stores. But the closures also have city officials scrambling to cover revenue shortfalls and deter commercial blight.

While Wal-Mart may be able to absorb the cost of closed stores and their leases, cities and towns are left dealing with empty buildings that can lead to a rise in crime and vandalism, the lowering of property values, and depressed sales for neighboring retailers when the closed store is the anchor for a strip mall. And for states like Arizona, a drop in sales tax revenue. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance has pointed out that some cities, such as Oakdale, California, or Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, require retail developers set aside money that can be used by the city to either demolish or maintain the site should the store or shopping center become vacant.

Some cities, like Mesa, Arizona, aren’t so lucky.

The shell of a former Walmart sits 2 miles from a Kmart that will close in January. A Mervyn’s and Circuit City will soon depart the area. Such losses this year contributed to Mesa’s $62 million budget shortfall. The city announced 315 layoffs last month.

Cities try to cope with shortfalls in sales taxes, blight left by shut stores [Arizona Republic]

Read the rest of this story ...

64 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue begins with a new study from the group Good Jobs First, which reveals that cash-strapped states are forgoing a total of roughly $1 billion annually in tax revenue because of little-noticed laws that permit retailers to keep a slice of the sales taxes they collect for the government. In fact, the study finds thirteen states do not cap the amount that a retailer can receive as vendor compensation for collecting sales tax, resulting in millions of lost tax dollars.

A large focus this week is also on Wal-Mart’s announcement that Lee Scott will step down as CEO in February 2009, to be replaced by Michael Duke, Wal-Mart’s Vice Chairman of its International Division. In addition to the CEO change, you’ll find stories on the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act, how Wal-Mart will deal with the Obama Administration from a labor perspective, and related news on Wal-Mart’s labor battles in Canada.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. Wal-Mart has founded a new consumer group in New England geared towards fighting Wal-Mart opponents, and has purchased its own wind-energy supply based out of Odessa, Texas

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 21, 2008]

6 comments

---

According to Good Jobs First and The Wall Street Journal, a large chunk of sales tax revenue gets redirected to retailers like Wal-Mart, a company that pockets an estimated $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.

At least that is the finding of a report released today by Good Jobs First, a nonprofit research group here in Washington:

Most of us don’t realize that in a majority of states with a sales tax, a portion of the money actually goes into the pocket of the retailer under programs set up by state and local governments. In this first-ever comprehensive national analysis of the subject, Good Jobs First finds that the public sector is losing more than $1 billion a year through these sales-tax diversions. A large share of revenue gets redirected to giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, a company we estimate pockets more than $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.

The state laws discussed in the report allow retailers to keep a portion of sales-tax revenue to offset the cost of collecting the funds in the first place, a reasonable enough excuse (especially since state governments are so flush with cash at the present). But does anyone really, and I mean REALLY, believe that Wal-Mart spends $60 million a year collecting sales tax? In this age of computer everything and electronic money transfers, I have a hard time believing it costs more than a fraction of that.

As it stands, many states have calculated a vendor compensation rate, which can be applied to a percentage of sales tax revenue to determine how much a retailer gets to keep for its trouble. As the WSJ reports, Good Jobs First has identified 13 states that impose no ceiling on the total amount retailers can keep. In states such as Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado that vendor compensation rate can be applied to the full amount of sales tax a company collects, resulting in substantial returns for companies like Wal-Mart. Good Jobs First has estimated the givebacks in these states - Illinois ($126 million), Texas ($90 million), Pennsylvania ($72 million), and Colorado ($69 million). Jesse Drucker at the WSJ kindly puts some perspective on those numbers - for example, the $90 million Texas gives away by not capping vendor compensation would cover the $82 million price-tag needed to fund that state’s primary pre-kindergarten program.

For what its worth, the Illinois Revenue Department was quoted as saying the state has tried to cap the compensation program, but relentless lobbying by the retail industry has so far kept legislators from making changes.

Skimming the Sales Tax: How Wal-Mart and Other Big Retailers (Legally) Keep a Cut of the Taxes We Pay on Everyday Purchases [Good Jobs First, November 2008]

Read the rest of this story ...

16 comments

---

We blogged about this yesterday, what with the double taxation in Connecticut and the various state officials telling Wal-Mart to stop. Well, the Hartford Courant obtained a copy of CT AG Blumenthal’s letter to Wal-Mart, and here it is. A sampling:

Please review with your Connecticut stores whether they are complying with Connecticut law, and report back to me your findings. If they are not complying, please report to me how you intend to refund customers for sales tax erroneously charged, and how you intend to ensure that your store and employees comply with Connecticut law in the future.

I return, yet again, to my favorite quote from yesterday‘s article:

[Wal-Mart] spokesman Dan Fogelman said Monday evening that although he has no idea what Connecticut state tax law is, his company is following it.

Dan and Wal-Mart better do their homework…

Connecticut Attorney General letter to Wal-Mart

1 comments

---

George Gombossy and the Hartford Courant continue to follow this issue, which has taken a turn in favor of the consumer. Numerous complaints made to the Courant caused both Governor Rell and Attorney General Blumenthal to take notice. The complaints were from consumers charging that major retailers have been violating state law by charging a second sales tax when merchandise paid for with cash is exchanged. Governor Rell ordered the state revenue department investigate the practice, and now AG Blumenthal has sent a letter to Wal-Mart telling the company’s general counsel in an oh-so-kindly way to please knock it off with the double taxation.

“Wal-Mart should refund any consumer who was denied a refund of sales tax on returned goods or charged a sales tax on even exchanges,” Blumenthal wrote to Sam Reeves, Wal-Mart’s division general counsel.

My favorite part of this story so far though has come from our good friend, Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogelman, who defended Wal-Mart’s policy.

Spokesman Dan Fogleman said Monday evening that although he has no idea what Connecticut sales tax law is, his company is following it.

That’s right - despite his cluelessness to the law and the company’s refusal to discuss why the accusations of so many customers are wrong, Fogelman can guarantee Wal-Mart is following state tax law to the tee. I love blanket statements with nothing to back them up.

Blumenthal Targets Wal-Mart on Sales Tax [Hartford Courant]

1 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue begins with news of Wal-Mart’s closing of a Quebec Tire and Lube Express, just two months after workers there won a precedent-setting collective bargaining agreement. The move has been wildly denounced, although Wal-Mart officials maintain that Wal-Mart is not anti-union. Following up on that, BloggingStocks.com asks whether it’s wise that the retailer would rather see an operation shut down entirely than have employees with any kind of power.

In addition, the Hartford Courant has been following an issue in Connecticut - it seems the CT Consumer Protection Department will review Wal-Mart’s double tax policy to see if it violates state tax law. And on the International side, read more about Wal-Mart’s new green store in Beijing, China, and how the retailer is claiming it will toughen standards on its Chinese suppliers.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [October 22, 2008]

2 comments

---

The Hartford Courant has been following this story, and apparently the complaints against Wal-Mart have been increasing. Consumers have increasingly suggested that Wal-Mart has to be violating some state law by requiring them to pay tax again on exchanges made without receipts. Actually, according to the Connecticut Revenue Department, additional sales tax cannot be charged if a store has an even exchange policy. In his blog, the Courant’s George Gombossy came to the following determination:

My conclusion is that not only is Wal-Mart violating state laws by charging tax again without receipts, but is letting its employees falsely blame the state.

Gombossy points out that on its website, Wal-Mart says: “You can replace, exchange, or get credit for an item immediately in a store, pending product availability.”

The issue is now with the state’s Consumer Protection Department.

Consumer Protection reviewing Wal-Mart’s double tax policy [Hartford Courant]

Despite complaints from customers of its stores throughout Connecticut, Wal-Mart insists that it’s following state tax laws by requiring them to pay tax again on exchanges made without receipts.

My conclusion is that not only is Wal-Mart violating state laws by charging tax again without receipts, but is letting its employees falsely blame the state. But you be the judge.

The law seems clear:

Read the rest of this story ...

49 comments

---

Since the issue of Wal-Mart has been surprisingly muted this campaign season (Wal-Mart Moms?), the retailer has decided to inject itself into the campaign ad fray. Both Obama and McCain have videos running on Wal-Mart’s corporate website. You can find them both here.

Here’s a little summary of the main points of each of the campaign messages you can find on walmartstores.com:

Obama:

Our economy is in crisis, we have two wars, and the American dream is slipping away (starting out on a positive note...nice)
We’re going to fix it by giving a $1,000 tax break to the middle class (YAY!!!! More money to spend at Wal-Mart!!!)
We’re going to allow workers to organize, for better wages, health care, benefits (Organize, YAY...wait, what?!)

Read the rest of this story ...