SMRs and AMRs

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Big corps try to skirt state tax laws

Why Wal-Mart Set Up Shop in Italy

By JESSE DRUCKER , Wall Street Journal

More than 4,500 miles separate a small Wal-Mart Stores Inc. office in Florence, Italy, from the company's dozens of Illinois retail outlets. But thanks to a convoluted tax arrangement, court records show, Wal-Mart's Italian operation has helped the giant retailer cut its state tax bill in Illinois by millions of dollars a year.

Wal-Mart set its affairs so that its Italian outpost is the only operating unit of a real-estate subsidiary that controls billions of dollars of the retailer's property in Illinois and other states. Because technically its only employees are based in Italy, the real-estate unit claims its operations are foreign, exempt from Illinois corporate income taxes.

Earlier this year, 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, Ill.

A Wal-Mart spokesman declined to comment beyond a prepared statement: "We have a disagreement with the state of Illinois over our tax liability last year, and we've asked a judge to resolve that for us." He declined to explain why Italy was chosen as the home of this particular foreign operation or whether Wal-Mart has other such arrangements.
The article is here. Fortunately, Wal-Mart's attempts to get around state tax laws have recently been rebuffed. See:
Judge Rules Against Wal-Mart Over Its Tax-Shelter Dispute

A North Carolina state-court judge ruled against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a closely watched tax-shelter case involving an arrangement in which the retailer essentially paid rent to itself and then deducted the amount from its taxes.

In an attachment to an order filed Friday, but signed on Dec. 31, Emergency Special Judge of Superior Court Clarence E. Horton Jr. wrote that Wal-Mart’s structure had no “real economic substance” other than cutting taxes. The judge dismissed Wal-Mart’s suit, in which it sought a refund of $33.5 million in taxes, interest and penalties that it paid after state tax authorities determined it had underpaid by that amount.
The rest is here. Thanks to Minnesota Central for the heads up.

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home