In another world, this might be called a crime–and maybe it is illegal. But, at least, it’s pretty sleazy and makes you wonder: why would any state really want Wal-Mart? After all, it generates low-paying jobs that keep workers in poverty–not a great way to build your tax base–and, it turns out, the Beast of Bentonville does everything possible to try to cut its state taxes.

    The Wall Street Journal today has this:

In May 2001, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued an appeal to big accounting firms: Find us creative new ways to cut our state tax bills.

Ernst & Young LLP swung into action. Senior tax experts at the big accounting firm swapped ideas via email and in a series of meetings. At least one gathering, according to an internal Ernst & Young calendar, took place in Wal-Mart’s headquarters in the "Tax Shelter Room."

Wal-Mart decided to hire Ernst & Young to help devise complex tax strategies to use in at least four big states. The accounting firm, for example, helped Wal-Mart take tax deductions in California for dividends it never actually paid. And in Texas, Ernst & Young advised, the giant retailer could exploit a wrinkle in the tax law involving limited partners from out-of-state — a maneuver subsequently shut down by the state’s legislature.

   Wal-Mart isn’t the first company to try this gimmick but it was the most aggressive:

Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of transactions pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North Carolina case indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose: cutting its state income taxes. Ernst & Young worked to fulfill that goal. In 2002, for example, the accounting firm delivered a 37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord of 27 potential tax strategies, most tailored to a particular state’s tax code. It described one of them as "a very aggressive strategy with considerable risk."

    Here is how some of the scam worked, using real-estate investment trusts:

Ernst & Young dreamed up a novel way to sidestep combined-reporting requirements in California. It used an unusual type of dividend to transfer income from one subsidiary to another in such a way that the second unit wouldn’t be taxed.

Here’s how it worked: When REITs pay dividends to their shareholders, they can deduct those payments from their taxable income. The federal government permits REITs to take deductions for dividends before they’re actually paid — a provision intended to give them extra time to make payments. Such dividends are called "consent dividends" because the recipients must consent to record the unpaid dividends as taxable income.

Ernst & Young argued that California law permitted REITs to deduct such consent dividends, but that the state law didn’t also require recipients of the consent dividends to count them as taxable income, according to one person who worked on the transactions. The accounting firm proposed a strategy in which the Wal-Mart REIT would claim a tax deduction for paying consent dividends to its parent, but the unit receiving the dividends wouldn’t record them as income for tax purposes. The bottom line: Wal-Mart could reduce its taxable income in California by an amount equal to the total consent dividend payments it recorded, thereby cutting its tax bill.

Two years later, California’s Franchise Tax Board, the state’s income-tax agency, put the strategy on its list of "Abusive Tax Shelters." Wal-Mart’s Mr. Bullington said in his deposition that California tax authorities have protested various tax benefits taken by the retailer since 1998. California also is in litigation with a big bank, City National Corp., over a similar strategy.

    The thing to know: Wal-Mart has paid roughly half of the average state corporate income tax over the past decade. These guys are truly a shredding machine–sucking out anything they can from a community and leaving it worse for the wear.