Alabama tax preparer indicted in tax fraud case
The owner and operator of a tax preparation service in Alabama has been indicted in a federal fraud case. A grand jury handed up a 37-count indictment against Ametra Q. Wooden, Northern District of Alabama U.S. Attorney Prim Escalona and IRS Criminal Investigations Atlanta Field Office Special Agent in Charge James Dorsey said in a joint news release Wednesday. It was not immediately known if Wooden has an attorney who could speak on her behalf. Wooden, 33, is charged with 35 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent tax returns and two counts of willfully failing to file personal income tax returns. If convicted, she faces a maximum of three years in prison on each of the aiding and assisting charges and a $250,000 fine and up to a year on each of the failing to file charges, and a $100,000 fine. According to the indictment, Wooden owned and operated A Plus Tax Experts & Financial Services, a tax preparation firm with locations in Birmingham and Jasper. Her alleged crimes occurred on behalf of clients for the tax years 2014 through 2017. And, in 2014 and 2016, she allegedly failed to file personal tax returns, federal authorities said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Personnel Update: Former Doug Jones staffer Kate Messervy joins Business Council of Alabama
Kate Messervy has been named director of regional affairs – northern region for the Business Council of Alabama (BCA). Her primary focus will be to better serve BCA membership in north Alabama. Along with working closely with the chambers of commerce in North Alabama, Messervy will be responsible for member services, governmental affairs, and working with elected officials to learn about the business community’s needs in the area. BCA President and CEO Katie Boyd Britt stated, “We are thrilled to have Kate Messervy join the team and be boots on the ground in north Alabama. She brings a wealth of knowledge and a deeply-rooted passion for serving the people of Alabama, and we look forward to the many ways she will help serve and grow our membership in this region of the state.” Kate served as a field representative for former Senator Doug Jones, where she assisted in special event production. She worked with government officials to develop business opportunities and managed crisis communications. Messervy stated, “I am thrilled to be joining the BCA team. I feel honored to be able to carry out BCA’s mission by empowering and supporting the business community in North Alabama. I look forward to this opportunity and cannot wait to learn under Katie’s leadership.” Kate earned a Bachelor of Arts in Communications degree from The University of Alabama Huntsville. She currently resides in Huntsville with her husband and two sons. The Business Council of Alabama is Alabama’s foremost voice for business and is a non-partisan business association in Alabama. The BCA is Alabama’s exclusive affiliate to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. According to the BCA website, Kellie Hope is the organization’s only other regional field staffer. She joined the BCA in November of 2019 and covers the southern part of the state as its Director of Regional Affairs.
Jim Zeigler: Why is the Day Called ‘Good Friday’?
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings adds Martha Roby as senior advisor
Former congressman Martha Roby has joined Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP as a senior advisor in the Governmental Affairs and Economic Development group. Roby served as the U.S. Representative for Alabama’s Second Congressional District from 2011 to 2021. She served on the Agriculture, Armed Services, and Education and Workforce committees and was also the chairman of the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations of the House Armed Services Committee. Ms. Roby received her J.D. from the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. She also received a B.M in Music Business from New York University. She was in private practice in Montgomery, Alabama, and then served on the Montgomery City Council from 2003 to 2010. During her tenure in Congress, Roby sponsored and cosponsored more than 500 bills. She spent much of her time focusing on issues relating to veterans’ health, military mobility, and abuses in the Veterans Affairs health system. In her new position, Roby will provide governmental affairs, but not legal, services for clients. Managing Partner and Chairman of the Board Jonathan Skeeters stated, “We are extremely pleased to welcome Martha as a senior advisor for governmental affairs and economic development. Martha has a decade of service as a member of Congress and service on the Montgomery City Council, as well as a background in private legal practice. She brings tremendous experience to our firm and will be able to help advance the interests of our clients in Alabama and across the country.” “I have had the pleasure of working with Martha since her election to Congress in 2010,” stated David Stewart, Bradley’s Governmental Affairs Practice Group leader. “During her service in Congress, she distinguished herself for her ability to solve problems for her constituents and to work well with all members of Congress. Martha has a wide breadth of experience from her time in Washington and on the Montgomery City Council. We are very excited to have Martha join us.” Roby was the first representative from Alabama’s Second Congressional District to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, where she served on six of the 12 subcommittees, including the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Labor, Education, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, and the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. In this position, she had direct oversight of over 90 departments and related agencies. With offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and the District of Columbia, Bradley’s 550 lawyers represent clients in several industries, including banking and financial services, construction, energy, healthcare, life sciences, manufacturing, real estate, and technology.
Strike set for Alabama coal mines barring late agreement
More than 1,100 workers at two Alabama coal mines and related facilities owned by Warrior Met Coal Inc. will go on strike barring a last-minute labor agreement, the United Mine Workers of America said Wednesday. Negotiators have not been able to reach a deal on a new contract, and workers will walk off the job Thursday night unless continuing negotiations succeed, said union spokesman Phil Smith. “We hope that an agreement can be reached, but the company will need to move substantially from where it is now for the union to have reason to take something back to our members for potential ratification,” he said. The union did not release details on a potential contract. Brookwood-based Warrior Met issued a statement through a publicist late Wednesday saying the company has been working in good faith to reach an agreement as the existing contract was set to expire. “Throughout negotiations, our sight has remained on the future -– to provide our employees with a competitive package while protecting jobs and the longevity of the Company and its workforce,” said the statement emailed by publicist Erin Vogt on behalf of Warrior Met Coal. Union officials said a strike would include the company’s No. 4 and No. 7 mines, a preparation plant and a central shop, all located in Tuscaloosa County, a union statement said. Workers sacrificed to bring the company out of the Walter Energy bankruptcy five years ago, President Cecil Roberts said in the statement. “These productive, professional miners at Warrior Met mined the coal that meant the company could become successful again,” he said. “And Warrior Met has capitalized on their hard work, earning tens of millions in profits for their Wall Street owners. They have even rewarded upper management with bonuses of up to $35,000 in recent weeks.” Warrior Met, which produces coal that’s used in steel production in Asia, Europe, and South America, recently reported a loss of about $35 million for last year compared to net income of $302 million for 2019. Citing uncertainty created by the global pandemic, the company did not release financial guidance for 2021. “We continue to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and these other potentially disruptive factors on our business, although we believe that it is premature to speculate on when the economies of the countries in which our customers are located will reopen on a sustained basis” and return to normal demand, the company said in a statement in February. The global market for metallurgical coal is “rebounding” from the pandemic, Smith said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Thirteen attorneys general sue Joe Biden administration over stimulus tax rule
Attorneys general from 13 states sued President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday over a rule in the federal stimulus that bars states from using relief money to offset tax cuts. The filing in U.S. District Court in Alabama asks judges to strike down the provision in the wide-ranging relief act signed by Biden that prohibits states from using $195 billion of federal aid “to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction” in net tax revenue. The restriction could apply through 2024. The coalition, which includes one Democratic attorney general, is concerned the provision can construe any tax cut as taking advantage of the pandemic relief funds. A bigger group of 21 Republican attorneys general earlier this month wrote a letter seeking clarification from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who is named in the new lawsuit. The department at the time said the provision isn’t meant as a blanket prohibition on tax cuts. States can still offset tax reductions through other means. “Nothing in the Act prevents States from enacting a broad variety of tax cuts,” Yellen wrote in a response on April 23. “It simply provides that funding received under the Act may not be used to offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting from certain changes in state law.” But West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who co-led the lawsuit with his colleagues from Alabama and Arkansas, argues the interpretation of the word “indirectly” in the provision could come back to haunt states that cut taxes. “This ensures our citizens aren’t stuck with an unforeseen bill from the feds years from now,” he said in a statement. Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said the “federal tax mandate is an unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on state sovereignty.” Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah also signed onto the lawsuit. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, earlier this month separately asked a federal judge to block the tax-cut provision. Several state legislatures are weighing tax reform this year, which is partly driving the lawsuit. West Virginia lawmakers are hurrying to approve a cut to the state income tax before their 60-day session ends on April 10. Montana’s GOP-controlled statehouse is considering several tax cut bills. Its Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen said “it’s a slap in the face to Montana” to limit how the stimulus funds can be used. Yellen, whose department declined new comment, had said in her letter that “it is well established that Congress may place such reasonable conditions on how States may use federal funding.” The nonprofit Tax Foundation said in a new report this week that it’s more likely the Treasury Department would opt for a “narrow interpretation that does not unduly tie states’ hands” in enforcing the provision. “Most states are likely at minimal risk regardless of the tax policy choices they make,” it said. “For now, however, uncertainty persists, and lawmakers must operate within that uncertainty.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Dan Sutter: The hero treatment?
West Coast cities have passed “Hero Pay” ordinances, increasing grocery store workers’ pay by up to $5 per hour. Numerous stores have closed in response, putting the heroes out of a job. Such poor economic policies produce avoidable harm. Cities passing “Hero Pay” ordinances include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and Seattle. The laws apply (in most cases) to large chain-owned stores and have mandated $4 or $5 per hour temporary pay increases (frequently for 120 days) due to workers’ exposure to COVID-19. Proponents point to grocery chains’ profits during the pandemic as evidence that they can afford the extra pay. Kroger is one chain that has closed stores after Hero Pay ordinances. The California Grocers’ Association, which is challenging the laws in court, claims that the pay hikes will increase labor costs by 20 percent and overall costs by 5 percent. While many Americans have worked from home during the pandemic, millions in retail, agriculture, transportation, and health care have had to work in person. Their willingness to work in the face of uncertain risk is courageous and has kept us fed and the lights on. We did not initially know exactly the lethality of COVID-19, its risk profile, or whether precautions like distancing and plexiglass would work. Do grocery workers deserve extra pay for their exposure to COVID-19? Quite likely. And the labor market has already addressed this. Employment is entirely voluntary. No business can make anyone work for them. Businesses must pay enough to recruit and retain workers willing to stock shelves and operate cash registers. When comparing jobs, people will consider job characteristics in addition to pay. Inherently interesting jobs require less pay, while physically demanding, boring, or dangerous jobs require more pay. The pandemic made on-site jobs less attractive. Grocery workers must interact with both coworkers and customers, increasing their risk. Many workers would demand extra compensation to risk exposure. Businesses will not want to lose experienced and reliable workers, so companies like Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Safeway increased pay last spring. What is wrong with the ordinances if companies were already offering some Hero Pay? Workers earn their pay by helping businesses produce goods and services, and competition for workers results in pay based on productivity. Grocery stores have very thin profit margins, and an extra $5 per hour could turn profit into loss, leading to store closures or reduce hours. How many city council members have managed grocery stores? Should we take then their assurances that stores can afford the extra pay seriously? Will these generous politicians reach into their own pockets to pay grocery workers who might lose their jobs? We do not honor heroes by possibly pushing them into unemployment. Leaving aside job losses, Hero Pay will hurt many of these politicians’ other constituents. When Kroger and Safeway close stores, Californians unable to afford delivery, must drive farther to shop and likely pay higher prices for groceries. Political observers contend that city councils are courting favor with grocery unions here. Perhaps, but there may be more involved. Government policies during COVID-19 have had sharply divergent class impacts. Many high-income earners shifted to remote working and locked themselves safely in their homes to await a vaccine, relying on others to deliver groceries and keep the internet working. Government policy has arguably imposed the “Zoom Privilege” class’s response on everyone. I suspect Hero Pay laws reflect guilt over the burden of lockdown policies on those who must work in person. San Francisco’s Hero Pay ordinance specifically mentions a need for extra pay for childcare with schools closed for in-person instruction. The workers who showed up for work during the pandemic exhibited bravery and deserve our recognition. But Californians might prefer if their politicians had merely designated a week to honor grocery workers. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Will Sellers: What’s in a name?
There has been much debate lately about how we name public buildings and whether we should remove some names because of long-ago actions that no longer conform to contemporary societal practices. Public buildings are always tricky to name, as evidenced by the fact that just a couple of years ago, the University of Alabama Law School was named after Hugh Culverhouse, Jr. in acknowledgment of a very generous donation. However, Culverhouse’s donation was later returned, and his name was chiseled from the law school’s facade. At Alabama State University many years ago, in-fighting and disputes among the trustees resulted in the Joe L. Reed Acadome being renamed. Scandals and criminal convictions have caused other public facilities to suffer the same fate. A variety of buildings once named after Healthsouth founder Richard Scrushy no longer sport his name. Similarly, there is no longer an Enron Field; ditto the MCI Worldcom Center. So, before we take further action to name or rename any public buildings, I would like to suggest a new criterion that should be used in the future. It is always complicated to name something after a person who is still alive because the curriculum vitae is not complete. As long as someone is alive, there is more than adequate opportunity for them to act inappropriately, commit wrongdoing, or be revealed to possess feet made of clay rather than marble. I order to ensure that a facility named in someone’s honor avoids becoming an embarrassment to the institution – a retreat as opposed to advancement – perhaps a good rule would be to wait until they have been dead for at least five years. That way, their entire record is complete, most statutes of limitations have expired, and their legacy should be secure. Of course, one problem with this proposal is that living people tend to contribute more when they are alive and are attempting to establish a lasting legacy that, along with a satiated ego, only their name on a building will suffice. Heirs tend to prefer to experience a legacy more in selfish monetary terms; naming opportunities thus abound for the living. So, while donations might decrease, naming a building or whatever after someone who is deceased seems like a safe bet. . .or at least it used to. I say “seems” because now we are in a local and nationwide frenzy to fully explore the lives of people for whom structures have long ago been named. And in doing this, any improper conduct is scrutinized based on our current understanding of what should have been acceptable, polite behavior during the life of the honoree. Perhaps we are finally embracing Shakespeare’s observation that “the evil men do lives after them, but the good is oft interred in their bones.” No one can argue that commemorating someone who supported a criminal enterprise is acceptable. Not many cities have an Al Capone Avenue or a Benito Mussolini Drive. Open, obvious, and socially unacceptable behavior, no matter how sizable the donation or political influence at the time, can never reach the level of deserving commemoration. But we must be very careful because the finer the tooth on the comb and the higher the magnification of the glass provides details and information that might be better left undiscovered. In fact, few people look saintly when every nook and cranny of their life is fully examined. Several times a year, a new book comes out revealing that a well-known figure was a member of a socially unacceptable movement. Families under the yoke of an authoritarian government are shocked to discover an informer in their midst, a closeted Nazi or mafia hitman. Years ago, France was so stunned that a documentary revealed more collaborators than resistance fighters that it was banned from television because it “destroys myths that the people of France still need.” And who can forget when decades after World War II ended, United Nations General Secretary Kurt Waldheim was exposed as a Nazi intelligence officer? Others have discovered past family connections to organized crime. DNA testing often confirms embarrassing assignations. But in discovering a not so auspicious past, few communities completely jettison a native son, and families still embrace wayward kin. Most simply use the exposure to show the failed humanity that affects all of us. I once heard a businessman on a panel about ethics comment that “there is a little larceny in all of us.” In saying so, he was not refusing to condemn bad behavior but was pointing out the permanence of original sin. Thornton Wilder penned the famous quote: “There is so much good in the worst of us, and so much bad in the best of us, that it behooves all of us not to talk about the rest of us,” which is probably a good thing to remember when we critique others. I don’t know anyone who likes seeing their face in a mirror with magnification! The lives of humans are complicated, complex, and contradictory. Many seemingly mainstream people can have odd ideas about the world. In hindsight, old fads look sinister; the basis of past popular culture rarely survives contemporary scrutiny. Political correctness changes with the wind and whims. A thorough background check unearths activities that are at the same time sublime, ridiculous, and embarrassing. So, if we are going to name public buildings after people, we should be very careful not only in who we choose to honor but how we choose to judge them. We must also make certain that judging ourselves by the same standards does not reveal more than a measure of hypocrisy, sanctimony, and pretense. Rather than naming buildings after people, whether they are dead or alive, I have a much better idea. Perhaps we could name our edifices, parks, and public squares after non-violent animals, flowers, and friendly fruits and vegetables. The Alabama State
