Monday, February 07, 2011

Al Sharpton, tax scofflaw

Remember when Al Sharpton ran for president? I know, it seems like a fantasy, but he did and got to participate in the debates and pretend he was the leader of the nation's African Americans. Mostly what he is is a major fraud who has made a very nice living doing whatever it is that he does. What he doesn't do is pay taxes on those earnings.
Sharpton owes $359,973 to the IRS for 2009 personal income tax, according to documents on file with the city.

Public records show he owes a total of $3.7 million in city, state and federal taxes, including penalties, dating to 2002. But Sharpton's spokeswoman, Rachel Noerdlinger, said that he had paid back "well over seven figures" as part of agreements with the state and IRS and that the liens remained on the books as "a matter of bureaucracy."

Sharpton made $250,000 as head of the nonprofit National Action Network in 2009, a year that ended with the group owing $1.1 million in taxes and having just $36,397 cash on hand.

The organization also pays for first-class or charter travel for Sharpton and other NAN staff, according to its 2009 tax return. Noerdlinger declined to say for whom.
Yeah, I hate it too when a "matter of bureaucracy" prevents me from paying the money I owe the government. But I'm sure that Sharpton would be the first in line calling for more federal spending to be paid by taxpayers other than himself.


Pat Patterson said...

His spokeswoman is right in that the liens stay on his records even if they have been cleared by payment or an agreed upon repayment schedule. Since the spokeswoman did not mention if he had paid the city taxes that could certainly explain why all the liens are still showing and possibly some still in effect while many could exist on paper only. And much as I agree with his worthlessness you have to consider that the NY Post has an almost pathological hatred of him, deservedly, since the Tawana Brawley case.

I of course am speaking from very sad experience about clearing tax records.

Steve R. said...

Wow ya look at this guy( al sharpster) then look at Walter Williams and you would swear they are not from the same universe...

mark said...

I would love to get rid of Sharpton (from any leadership role). I'll never forget his disgraceful behavior during the Tawana Brawley case many years ago.
With your zeal to punish tax scofflaws, I await your push ask Clarence Thomas to stop disgracing our Supreme Court and resign:

Evidence is mounting that Justice Thomas violated federal law from 1989 through the present by failing to report his wife’s annual salary by checking “NONE” on the box for “Non-Investment Income” on judicial AO 10 Financial Disclosure Reports. Seven of those forms can be found at

tfhr said...

Sounds qualified to take Rangel's seat.

LargeBill said...


Understanding comprehension isn't your strong suit, let me try to explain difference between what Sharpton is accused of and what you are alleging about Justice Thomas. Failing to disclose all his wife's income on some intrusive federal form does not in anyway indicate whether or not taxes were paid on her income. In fact, we have no way of knowing whether they filed taxes jointly or separately. Because of my wife's employment, I have to fill out similar forms and I complain every year about it being none of their business, blah, blah, blah, and then fill them out at the last minute. My guess is every two-income couple that has to fill that crap out argues about it. I also doubt they are always filled out accurately.

mark said...

Thanks for the correction. I even deserve the snarkiness of your reply.
As far as not filling out the "intrusive" form, it doesn't matter what your opinion is, or how many people fill out the forms correctly. You don't see any problem with a SCJ lying on a statement and then (presumably) swearing to the authenticity of the statement? Nobody gets to choose which laws they have to follow.

LargeBill said...

I do see a problem with swearing to the validity of false statements. However, I don't think it is at all comparable to actually cheating on one's taxes and is more a reflection of the arrogance that is a natural result of lifetime appointments. I understand the reasoning behind the decision to give federal judges lifetime appointments. However, I also recognize it can lead to some negative results, with senility and arrogance being primary concerns. Now, my accusing Thomas of being arrogant is solely based on taking the news reports at face value. I have not seen a response from Thomas explaining the situation. I don't know what explanation would be satisfactory, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a story to tell which may be considerably different than what we know so far. Regardless the comparison to Sharpton doesn't work as Rev. Al's actions resulted in material gain and Thomas' actions even in the worst light don't result in profit.

Pat Patterson said...

Thomas at worse has committed a technical violation of the IRS rules for which there is only a small penalty but is not an actual crime such as Rangel has committed. Oddly enough there is no judicial code of ethics for the SCOTUS, that's why they serve for life and can only be removed via impeachment proceedings in the House and the Senate. But then Sotomayor and Ginsberg might also have to explain their refusal to recuse themselves from issues they advocated before elevation to the bench.