People Jailed for Owing Less Taxes Than Al Sharpton

Serial tax avoidance appears to be a hallmark of Al Sharpton’s operations. But there’s a warning here: Others have gone to prison for lesser amounts. The list includes rock legend Chuck Berry, Grammy winner Lauryn Hill, Ron Isley of the Isley Brothers, Survivor reality star Richard Hatch, hotel queen Leona Helmsely, and baseball’s Pete Rose (see below).
According to a New York Times' review of government records last fall, the MSNBC host and civil rights activist personally faces federal tax liens for more than $3 million in back taxes owed, and state tax liens of $777,657. So in total, Sharpton reportedly owes more than $3.7 million in back taxes. His other two for-profit businesses, Raw Talent and Revals Communications, (both now defunct) owe anywhere from $717,000 to more than $800,000, based on state and federal tax liens, reports from the Times and National Review indicate. Revals Communications also either didn’t file its tax returns, or underpaid its tax bills from 1999 to 2002.
Sharpton’s National Action Network also owed more than $813,000 in federal back taxes as of December of 2012, according to the nonprofit’s recent filings. At one point, the National Action Network's tax liability more than doubled last decade, jumping from $900,000 in 2003 to almost $1.9 milion in 2006. In 1993, Sharpton also had entered a guilty plea for the misdemeanor of failing to file his New York State income-tax return. Sharpton has also said the National Action Network had once given him a loan to pay for his daughters’ tuition, which is a violation of the law.

Sharpton has heatedly denied the tax evasion claims. “The (New York Times’) story is at best misleading and totally out of context,” Sharpton has said, adding, “Every time there's a Sean Bell or a Ferguson or a Trayvon Martin, we go through my taxes.” 
Sharpton also said of the Times article: “I think it’s political…a lot of people don’t like the fact that President Obama is president. A lot of people don’t like the fact that Bill de Blasio won for mayor. And they certainly don’t like the fact that I’m still here.” A Times spokesperson has said:  “We stand by our story.”
Sharpton indicated he has accrued these tax bills, but he has said he is either disputing the amounts owed or has been paying off his personal federal income taxes in installments. He has said his nonprofit, the National Action Network, also has been paying off its tax liability. Individual IRS tax returns and records are not publicly available, they are subject to privacy laws, as are documentation of fights between taxpayers and the agency. However, state and federal tax liens against Mr. Sharpton and his businesses appear to remain active, which indicates the bills have not been completely paid off.
It’s an open secret in Washington, DC and among IRS revenue agents and auditors that the IRS's decentralized operation often results in disparate treatment of taxpayers. Even though there exists a large body of administrative law that says federal agencies must exercise their discretion in a consistent manner, tax lawyers have argued that does not necessarily apply to the IRS. Reason: In many cases, the IRS argues it is actually not exercising any discretion, but instead is hewing to the law and its directives.
However, reality is often different. For instance, in one 2010 IRS case, a manufacturer alleged the agency unfairly slapped his company with a federal excise tax that his competitors did not have to pay. But the company lost in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Juan R. Torruella wrote for the court. “The goal of treating similarly situated taxpayers consistently is general, not strict.”
That certainly has been the experience of others who have gone to prison for tax avoidance--a red flag for Sharpton and his operation:
Chuck Berry ($200,000)
In 1979, the rock legend served a five-month sentence at California’s Lompoc Prison Camp after he was found guilty of evading $200,000 in taxes. Berry was also ordered to do 1,000 hours of community service upon his release.
Pete Rose ($354,968)
In 1990, the former Cincinnati Red star and manager pleaded guilty to two felony charges of filing false federal tax returns. Rose spent five months in a Marion, Ill., federal prison; he was also fined $50,000. Rose had failed to report on his tax returns $354,968 in income from selling memorabilia and autographs, as well as personal appearances (his gambling resulted in a lifetime ban from baseball).
Richard Hatch ($1 million+)
In 2006, this “Survivor” reality star was convicted of tax evasion and tax fraud for failing to pay taxes on his $1 million-plus in “Survivor” winnings. Hatch was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison. He served just over three years before his release in 2009. Hatch was then ordered to refile his 2000 and 2001 tax returns, but did not do so. He was eventually ordered back to jail in 2011 to serve nine months, and left jail on supervised release. By that time, together with penalty and interest, Hatch owed close to $2 million in back taxes.
Leona Helmsley ($1.7 million)
In 1992 a federal judge sentenced Leona Helmsley to four years in prison (an initial 16-year sentence was reduced on appeal) after her tax evasion conviction. The billionaire real estate heiress was charged with avoiding $1.2 million in taxes after claiming $2.6 million in ineligible business expenses, including personal items. Helmsley also was ordered to do 750 hours of community service and was slapped with a $7.1 million fine. Helmsley served 21 months and was released in January 1994. She was quoted by her maid at trial as saying: “We don’t pay taxes, only little people pay taxes.”
Lauryn Hill ($1.8 million)
In 2012, Hill pleaded guilty to three counts of failure to file tax returns on $1.8 million in earnings between 2005 to 2007. Even though the founding member of the Fugees had argued she nearly paid off her taxes before sentencing, Hill was sentenced to three months in prison. Her sentencing also took into account unpaid state and federal taxes in 2008 and 2009, which brought the total owed to roughly $2.3 million. Hill served her three-month sentence in a federal prison in Danbury, Conn. in 2013. Upon release, she also spent three months in home confinement as part of her parole.
Ron Isley ($3.1 million)
In 2006, the lead singer of The Isley Brothers (“Who’s That Lady”) was found guilty of five counts of tax evasion and one count of willful failure to file tax returns for tax years 1997–2002, amounting to $3.1 million not reported. Isley was sentenced to three years and one month, served three years behind bars, and was released in April 2010. Isley’s attorney had pleaded for leniency because Isley had been attempting to pay down his IRS debt. Defense attorney Anthony Alexander also had argued that the 65-year-old singer should receive probation instead of prison time because of complications from a stroke and a bout with kidney cancer. But the judge on his case, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson, declined to sentence the R&B singer to less time than called for under federal guidelines. "The term serial tax avoider has been used. I think that's appropriate," Pregerson said.

NBC's Tom Brokaw reportedly wants Brian Williams fired over fabricated Iraq helicopter story

Longtime "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw reportedly wants his successor, Brian Williams, thrown out of the big chair after he admitted  fabricating key portions of a story he repeatedly told about his reporting experience during the Iraq War in 2003. 
The New York Post, citing sources at the network, reported that Brokaw, 74, has been "making a lot of noise at NBC that a lesser journalist or producer would have been immediately fired or suspended for a false report."
Brokaw was the anchor of NBC's flagship evening newscast when Williams filed his initial report in March 2003. In it, Williams described how he was traveling in a group of helicopters forced down in the Iraq desert. On the ground, Williams said, he learned the Chinook in front of him "had almost been blown out of the sky"; he showed a photo of the aircraft with a gash from a rocket-propelled grenade.
Williams succeeded Brokaw as the "Nightly News" anchor following the 2004 presidential election, and his story evolved over time. 
In a 2008 blog post, Williams said that his helicopter had come under fire from what appeared to be Iraqi farmers with rocket-propelled grenade. He said a helicopter in front of his had been hit.
Then, in a 2013 appearance on David Letterman's "Late Show" on CBS, Williams said that two of the four helicopters he was traveling with had been hit by ground fire, "including the one I was in."
On Wednesday, Williams recanted that story, claiming he was that he was flying in a Chinook helicopter behind the formation that took fire. However, on Thursday, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, which broke the story, reported that Williams was actually flying with a different helicopter company altogether, in a different direction, and linked to the attacked unit only by radio.
Adding to the intrigue, the Post reported that Brokaw and former NBC News president Steve Capus, who left the network in 2013, knew that Williams' updated version of his tale was not true before the anchor's admission Wednesday evening. The paper also says NBC News executives had counseled Williams to stop telling the story. 
Despite Brokaw's campaign, the paper says NBC will take no action against Williams, believing that his on-air apology Wednesday will suffice. 
"He is not going to be suspended or reprimanded in any way," one source told the paper. "He has the full support of NBC News."

White House says Obama will ask Congress to authorize military force against ISIS

President Obama is expected to formally ask Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State terror group in the coming days, even as lawmakers said crafting and passing such a measure would be a challenge.
The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorists, most commonly known as ISIS, in Iraq and Syria since August and September, respectively. In doing so, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics have called the White House's use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations a legal stretch, though Obama has previously argued that a new authorization isn't legally necessary. 
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with bipartisian support. He declined to comment on specific provisions, including how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops. Earnest said those details were still being worked out. 
"When it comes to fighting a war, the Congress should not tie the president's hands, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning. However, Boehner later added, "It's also incumbent on the president to make the case to the American people on why we need to fight this fight. This is not going to be an easy lift."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said talks with the administration are focusing on an authorization time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi added that she ultimately expects a compromise on the outstanding issues to be reached and added that she hopes Congress will repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq while retaining the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement on it," Pelosi said. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
The developments come after Islamic militants released a grisly video of the murder of a Jordanian Air Force pilot by burning him alive. Pelosi also said that the U.S. should "move quickly" to steer military aid to Jordan, which has begun a stepped-up campaign against the militants, including a series of air strikes in Syria.
Republicans generally want a broader authorization of military action against the militants, who have overrun wide swaths of Iraq and Syria, than Democrats have been willing to consider. Obama has said he does not intend to have U.S. "boots on the ground" in combat roles, while many Republicans believe that option ought to be available to the military.
Secretary of State John Kerry has testified that any new authorization should not limit U.S. military action to just Iraq and Syria or prevent the president from deploying ground troops if he later deems them necessary. Kerry also said that if the new authorization has a time limit, there should be a provision for it to be renewed.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House intelligence panel, has already introduced legislation rather than wait for Obama's version. His bill would authorize the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria for three years, but prohibit the use of ground forces in a combat mission in either nation. He has said if the president later decided to deploy ground troops, he could return to Congress to ask for new authority.
"It is my hope that the administration will be willing to accept important limits in a new authorization as well as the sunset or repeal of the old [authorizations], as this will be necessary to ensure strong bipartisan support and meet the goals the president set last summer of refining and repealing the prior authorizations," Schiff said in a statement Thursday, using the acronym for authorization for use of military force.

Overreact Cartoon

Republicans warn EPA plan would give feds ‘free reign’ to regulate almost all waterways

Republican lawmakers warned Wednesday that a complex EPA proposal in the works would give the federal government "free reign" to regulate virtually any waterway or wetland in the country. 
In a rare joint House-Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was called to explain the plan, which has prompted complaints from farmers and agriculture groups, as well as local environmental officials who worry the EPA is claiming authority that should be left to the states. 
House transportation committee chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said that if the policy takes effect, "It will open the door for the federal government to regulate just about any place where water collects." 
Shuster claimed the proposal would "trample the rights" of state governments and hurt the middle class by driving up prices through additional regulation. 
"This rule is an end-run around Congress and another example of overreach by the administration," he said.   
Since 2013, the EPA has floated new rules that would define what kinds of waterways fall under its jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act already gives the EPA the ability to regulate "U.S. waters," but Supreme Court rulings have left the specifics unclear when it comes to waters that flow only part of the year. 
To address that, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers want to define that authority -- and are eyeing waterways deemed to have some significant connection to major rivers, lakes and other systems. This would include, according to the EPA, "most seasonal and rain-dependent streams" as well as wetlands near rivers and streams. The EPA has assured, though, that most farming activity would not require a permit. 
The EPA is planning to release a final rule in the spring of this year. 
McCarthy said Wednesday that the point is to make the rules "easier to understand" and more "consistent." She said the EPA is working to address the concerns of farmers and others, and stressed that the final rule "will not change in any way" those who are already exempted from the Clean Water Act. Speaking to farmers' concerns, she said the new plan would even reduce the law's jurisdiction over features like ditches. 
"We are in fact narrowing the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act," McCarthy said. EPA officials clarified at Wednesday's hearing that groundwater would not be covered under the new rule, potentially allaying some concerns. 
But several GOP lawmakers were not convinced, worried that the new EPA language would be used to force people and businesses to obtain "costly permits" for their land. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. -- citing the case of a Wyoming family that was threatened with $75,000 a day in fines over a stock pond built on their property without a federal permit -- said he would introduce legislation along with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to "stop this bureaucratic overreach."
Republicans, as well as farmers and other groups, say the plan could endanger private property rights by giving the EPA a say over temporary waterways like seasonal streams, under the Clean Water Act. Critics warn this could create more red tape for property owners and businesses if they happen to have even small streams on their land. 
The EPA claims, though, this does not expand its authority, and only clarifies it. 
"Let's set aside fact from fiction," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said at the hearing. She rejected the notion that the regulation might allow the government to claim jurisdiction over miniscule water bodies. 
"Puddles, swimming pools, stock ponds are not regulated," she stressed.

CEO of Gallup calls jobless rate 'big lie' created by White House, Wall Street, media

The chairman of the venerable Gallup research and polling firm says the official U.S. unemployment rate is really an underestimation and a “big lie" perpetuated by the White House, Wall Street and the media.
What CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed in his blog Tuesday about how the Labor Department arrives at the monthly unemployment rate is no secret -- including that Americans who have quit looking for work after four weeks are not included in the survey.
The department's current rate of 5.6 percent unemployment is the lowest since June 2008, with President Obama using his State of the Union address and campaign-style stops across the country to tout an economic recovery.
“Our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999,” Obama said in the opening lines of his January 20 address before Congress.“Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis.”
Clifton says the “cheerleading” for the 5.6 number is “deafening.”
“The media loves a comeback story,” he writes. “The White House wants to score political points, and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.”
Since the start of the Great Recession, which economists largely agree began in late 2007, the unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009 and finally got under 6 percent in September 2014.
Clifton says Americans out of work for at least four weeks are “as unemployed as one can possibly be” and argues that as many as 30 million of them are now either out of work or severely underemployed.
He points out that an out-of-work engineer, for example, performing a minimum of one hour of work a week, even mowing a lawn for $20, also is not officially counted as unemployed.
In addition, those working part time but wanting full-time work -- the so-called “severely underemployed” -- also are not counted.
“There's no other way to say this,” Clifton says. “The official unemployment rate … amounts to a big lie.”
His arguments are similar to those made by Washington Republicans after the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the rate each month during the height of the recession. However, Gallup is an 80-year-old, nonpartisan firm.
The bureau did not return a request for comment.
Clifton suggests the biggest misconception about the official rate is that it doesn’t denote “good” full-time jobs.
“When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't ‘feeling’ something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class,” he said.

Republicans unveil new ObamaCare replacement plan

Congressional Republicans are unveiling what they say is a new plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but the ‘blueprint,’ as they call it, looks an awful lot like what’s been floated before.
The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment – or CARE – Act was crafted by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.
The first bicameral proposal of the 114^th Congress calls for the outright repeal of President Obama’s signature health care law, and with that, the individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine.
It provides for targeted tax credits to individuals and families up to 300 percent above the poverty line to encourage people to buy plans in the market place.
It also allows insurers to sell plans across state lines and caps the amount of monetary damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice litigation. 
Like the Affordable Care Act, dependents are able to stay on their parents’ healthcare plans until they’re 26, and no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions - although this plan calls for a specific ‘continuous coverage’ protection where individuals moving from one plan to another cannot be denied.
Gone, however, are age-rating ratios banning insurance companies from charging older Americans more than three times what they charge younger individuals. The new federal baseline would be five-to-one, essentially lowering costs for younger, lower risk consumers.
To pay for it, Burr, Hatch and Upton propose taxing the value of health insurance plans above $30,000 a year as regular income. 
If these proposals sound familiar it’s because most of them are. Many are based on an outline pitched last year by Burr, Hatch, and former Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
“One of the reasons that you don't see massive changes is we thought we had a decent product last year based on feedback as we've talked with governors, with industry,” an aide familiar with the plan said. “A lot of industry frankly thinks this is a very durable sustainable, credible alternative from a market perspective, and they think it's operationally viable.”
Even if it’s viable don’t expect a vote - in either chamber - anytime soon. Aides are very quick to point out that this should not be hailed as the “GOP Plan.” 
“It’s just one plan,” as one adviser put it, and more input from governors and legislators will be needed before anything moves forward. Even hearings haven’t yet been discussed.
Same old song and dance we've been seeing for years, critics say.
Still pressure for viable alternatives is increasing.  
There currently is a case about to come before the Supreme Court challenging ObamaCare’s subsidies for private insurance for people who don’t have access to it through their jobs. If that provision is struck down, millions of consumers could drop coverage.
“As soon as we get feedback we are going to keep updating our proposal because now there is a different sense of urgency being in the majority to try to put something together, especially as we are headed to 2017," one Republican aide said.  “Not to mention what the Supreme Court may decide on June 30th.”
A larger bill will almost certainly wait until there is a new occupant in the White House.
“Let's all be realistic, the president, who the law is named after, he's not repealing his bill. So what we are doing is putting a very credible idea out there because what our bosses were sick and tired of hearing is the Republicans have no ideas," one aide said.  
“Will this whole thing happen before 2017, I find that hard to believe, but we're going to prepare for 2017.”

Shocked Jordanians rally behind king, against ISIS after video of pilot's killing

The shocking images of a Jordanian Air Force pilot being burned alive in an outdoor cage by ISIS terrorists have galvanized the country, once seen as possible fertile recruitment ground for the group, behind King Abdullah II's calls for a stepped-up military campaign.
Jordan's monarch has vowed to wage a "harsh" war against ISIS after consulting with his military chiefs Wednesday. Abdullah cut short his scheduled trip to the U.S. after the video showing the killing of Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh was released Tuesday.
In a statement, the king said Jordan is waging a war of principles against the militants. He said that Jordan's response to the killing of the pilot "will be harsh because this terrorist organization is not only fighting us, but also fighting Islam and its pure values."
Abdullah pledged to hit the militants "hard in the very center of their strongholds."
Jordanian officials have not presented details of their response, but said they would be working closely with their allies in the anti-IS coalition.
The New York Times reported that the king was greeted warmly upon his return Wednesday by thousands of people who lined the main roads to and from the airport. The paper reported that many waved flags and displayed pictures of both the king and the pilot.
The Guardian reported that radio and television station played patriotic songs and F-16 jets performed flyovers over the capital and al-Kaseasbeh's hometown. 
"I swear to God we will kill all those pigs," one man said of the terror group. "Whatever it takes to finish them is what we will do."
"We are all Hashemites and we are following the government with no reservations in this fight against these godless terrorists," a cafe patron, Yousf Majid al-Zarbi, told the paper. "Have you seen that video? I mean really, how in humanity could this be a just punishment for any person?"
Jordan had previously been thought to be home to thousands of supporters of ISIS. The kingdom is beset by several social problems, including a sharp economic down turn that has led to high unemployment among young men, who are typically a reservoir of potential ISIS recruits. Adding to a potentially destabilizing mix are the presence of hundreds of thousands of war refugees from Iraq and Syria who have poured across the border in the preceding decade. 
In recent months, Jordanian authorities have rounded up dozens of suspected ISIS supporters. In an early response to the grisly video, Jordan executed two Iraqi Al Qaeda prisoners, Sajida al-Rishawi and Zaid al-Karbouly, before sunrise Wednesday.
In Washington, lawmakers from both parties have called on the Obama administration to speed up deliveries of aircraft parts, night-vision equipment and other weapons to Jordan.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expected his panel to swiftly approve legislation calling for increased aid. He repeated his criticism that the Obama administration has "no strategy" for dealing with the Islamic State group, and said he hoped the video of al-Kaseasbeh's death will galvanize not only U.S. leadership but "the Arab world."
All 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Jordan's situation and the unanimity of the coalition battling the extremists "demands that we move with speed to ensure they receive the military materiel they require."
At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration would consider any aid package put forward by Congress, but that the White House would be looking for a specific request from Jordan's government.