Print This Print This

Posted on October 27th, 2009 in Citizen's Digest

IRS: Langford failed to report $226,000

By Kyle Whitmire

Prosecutors rested their case against Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford Tuesday, but not before an IRS auditor detailed nearly $77,000 of unpaid taxes Langford owes to the federal government.

According to IRS auditor Joe Elliot, Langford had about $226,000 in unreported taxable income from 2003 until 2005. That income included cash, as well as gifts of clothes and jewelry.

Larry Langford after his indictment was unsealed last year.

Larry Langford after his indictment was unsealed last year.

Langford faces a charge of making false filings with the IRS. The tax charge has a much lower burden of proof than some of the corruption charges Langford faces in the case.

Jurors also heard more testimony about some of the elaborate purchases Langford made at a Birmingham jeweler, Bromberg’s.

According to sales associates and store owner Ricky Bromberg, Langford tried to purchase a watch and other jewelry at the store, but he was turned down because he had an outstanding balance of more than $13,000 on his store account. Later, Langford returned to the store with Montgomery investment banker Bill Blount, who paid for his purchases.

Prosecutors have accused Langford of taking bribes of cash, clothes and jewelry in exchange for directing more than $7 million of bond business to Blount’s firm, Blount-Parrish & Co.

After that testimony, prosecutors rested their case and defense lawyers made what’s called a Rule 29 motion, asking U.S. District Judge Scott Coogler to throw out charges against Langford.

Defense lawyer Mike Rasmussen argued that Langford and Blount’s use of UPS did not qualify for mail fraud counts. Rasmussen argued that the act of shipping occurred as an after effect of their actions and not as part of a crime. He also disputed the prosecution’s claims of “honest services” fraud. The issue of what constitutes honest services fraud is under review by the United State Supreme Court.

Judge Coogler denied the defense’s motions.

For its first witness, the defense called Ocie Oden, Pastor at Antioch Missionary Baptist Church in Fairfield. Oden testified that Langford had given him a suit from Oxxford, one of the men’s clothing stores where Blount bought Langford clothes.

Outside the presence of the jury, lawyers wrestled over whether Oden could tell the jury that he had received as many as 60 suits from Langford through the years. Judge Coogler ruled that Oden could testify only to suits that came with store tags or had store labels.

Oden also said that he understood Langford to be a law-abiding citizen.

Another defense witness, Fred Simpler, told jurors he helped draft the promissory notes used to show Blount’s payments to LaPierre were used as loans and not bribes.
Simpler is a lawyer from Montgomery who did legal work for Blount.

Under cross examination, Simpler said that Blount had asked him in 2008 to print copies of those drafts for him because the SEC wanted to see them. Simpler also testified that the notes had been altered to erase the portion where a notary public would notarize them.

The defense’s third witness, Rick Fitzgerald worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs when that bank did business with Jefferson County. On the stand, Fitzgerald said that Goldman Sachs hired Blount because he had connections in Jefferson County.

Fitzgerald said that Jefferson County bond lawyer Bill Slaughter had spoken to him about disclosing Blount’s role in the bond deal. The investment bank wanted full disclosure of all parties. Eventually the bank used a so-called “side letter” to disclose Blount’s role in the bond deal.

During his testimony, Blount said that the county used side letters for disclosure to conceal his involvement from other county commissioners, particularly Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins. Blount said that they feared Collins would leak the letter showing his involvement to the media.

Testimony resumes after lunch.

  • Share/Bookmark
  • azikweabdullah
    THE DEFENSE WAS UNUSALLY FEEBLE IN THEIR WITNESS PRESENTATION .THE DEFENSE ALLOWED SOME SERIOUS OPPORTUNIES IN THEIR CROSSS EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ,THEY LET SLIDE WITHOUT CHALLENGE MAJOR STATEMENTS BY BOTH LAPIERRE AND BLOUNT CONCERNING WHAT THE GIFTS AND MONEY WERE EXPECTED TO BRING IN RETURN.
    THE CLOSING WILL INDEED BE INTERESTING.
blog comments powered by Disqus

WEEKLY PICKS: do more now

Weekly Tweets

War on Dumb

Birmingham 101: What will history say about us?

Birmingham 101: What will history say about us?

‘The city of perpetual promise.’ Does that mean incessant failure? Or rather, that Birmingham never gives up hope?

Upon Further Review

Bama wins, 2010 and amen

Bama wins, 2010 and amen

Part two of the college football season recap.

Column

Ties that bind

Ties that bind

A four-in-hand is worth two in the bush

Film

Casualties of war

Casualties of war

“The reasons we go to war always matter,” says the soldier played by Matt Damon [...]

Small World Cartoons

The Paranoid Guide to the 2010 Census

The Paranoid Guide to the 2010 Census

Uncle Sam left something lurking in your mailbox. Dare you open it?

(Click cartoon for a [...]

Suburban Legends

The King of Rock: No, Not Elvis

The King of Rock: No, Not Elvis

The world is designed to piss me off