Suicide Letter Of Man who Crashed Into IRS Building In Austin Texas

[DFW5Traveler]

I don't agree with the method used by stack, but the IRS needs to be reigned in. The IRS considers you guilty until proven innocent, which is antithema to the Due Process rights of a citizen. The thug mentality of IRS collections have caused people to do extremely irrational things. e.g., burning ones home when they seize property, shooting a prize polo pony in the middle of a city street ( owner of a SC in amarillo 20+ years ago ) and/or commiting murder/suicides. That amount of stress can't be understood until the IRS is after you. The question now is, when is the IRS going to go after the tax evaders Tim "turbo-tax" Geithner and Rahm "rahm-bo" Emanuel or even Rep. Charles Rangel, the House Ways and Means Chairman who writes tax code.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by woodyboyd

And the American dream IMO is bigger than anyone living in this country. If Joseph Stack felt like there were those in government who were denying both himself and others the chance of the American dream, then killing those government folks responsible was not evil but patriotic.

Killing is killing. If we truly believe in a system governed by laws I fail to see how killing anyone here is justified.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Porscheboy8888

In Joe's letter there was a small part of Internal Revenue Code Section 1706, who here read that and understood what he was referencing? It deals with who is an employee and who is an independent contractor (IC). It specifically excludes engineers from claiming IC status. What difference does this make, $$$$$$, both to the engineer and to the person paying for the engineer's services. Laws aren't necessarily fair, but are writted either to garner revenue or to placate those with good lobbyist.

Grrr!!! This little addendum to the 1986 Tax Code helped drive out independent contractors and small consulting corporations in particular in the IT world.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by woodyboyd View Post
And the American dream IMO is bigger than anyone living in this country. If Joseph Stack felt like there were those in government who were denying both himself and others the chance of the American dream, then killing those government folks responsible was not evil but patriotic.

.………………………………..__………………………………… ………
………………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,……………………………………
…………………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll ¯`*-,………………………………
………………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllll*-,…………………………….
……………,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllll lllll.\……………………………
………….;*`llllllllllllllllllllll lllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\…………………… ……..
…………..\lllllllllllllllllllllll llll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,………………………
…………...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,……………………..
…………….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)…………………….
……………..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../……………………........
……………...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\……………………..
……………../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\……………………
…………….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,………… …...
…………….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,………….
……………/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
…………...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\……..
…………….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..\……..
……………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………\…….
……................f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,……….\……..

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by Porscheboy8888

In Joe's letter there was a small part of Internal Revenue Code Section 1706, who here read that and understood what he was referencing? It deals with who is an employee and who is an independent contractor (IC). It specifically excludes engineers from claiming IC status. What difference does this make, $$$$$$, both to the engineer and to the person paying for the engineer's services. Laws aren't necessarily fair, but are writted either to garner revenue or to placate those with good lobbyist.

The tax consequences, if properly reported, may be about the same. My understanding (it's not an area I deal with often) is that a lot of people who are classified as "independent contractors" wound up cheating on their taxes by not reporting everything. I'm not entirely sure how they evaded 1099 reporting, but it apparently was widespread abuse. This was one attempt to crack down on it. If you force these professionals to be employees rather than independent contractors, it's harder to cheat on their taxes. The government later concluded that the law wasn't needed, but Congress never got around to repealing it.

[A brief aside. The biggest portion of taxes that are never collected does not come from huge corporations or the super-wealthy -- it's individuals who don't omit income, particularly small businesses that operate on a cash basis. That's hundreds of billions of dollars, but it's damned hard to track down and find. This was one attempt.]

From the manifesto, it appears that much of Stark's tax problems, at least the early ones, arose from "tax protestor" tactics. The nut jobs who claim that only those who reside in D.C., as opposed to the states, or only those who are employed by the government are subject to tax; or claim huge deductions for "reparations" for African-Americans or Native Americans (that were never enacted by Congress); or argue that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified; or filing a tax return is entirely voluntary; or the instructions for the 1040 don't display an OMB control number; or a host of others. And frankly, I'm glad that the government cracks down on people who espouse extreme positions like that.

There are abusive IRS employees, just as with any large bureaucratic organizations, but in most cases they are just enforcing the law as Congress wants them to. It can take a lot of time and effort to prevail in those instances when you're assessed improperly, but most of the people who run afoul of the IRS have been trying to evade taxes.

If you think the law is too complicated, complain to Congress. If you think that penalties for noncompliance are onerous, complain to Congress. If you think that employers should not be pursued for failure to pay over to the government the amounts withheld from their employees' paychecks, complain to Congress. If you think that there's a better system to assure that everyone pays the taxes they fairly owe under the law as written, so that the rest of us aren't faced with an even greater share of the burden, tell Congress.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Porscheboy8888

In Joe's letter there was a small part of Internal Revenue Code Section 1706, who here read that and understood what he was referencing? It deals with who is an employee and who is an independent contractor (IC). It specifically excludes engineers from claiming IC status. What difference does this make, $$$$$$, both to the engineer and to the person paying for the engineer's services. Laws aren't necessarily fair, but are writted either to garner revenue or to placate those with good lobbyist.[/B]

I don't want to put myself as a defender of the IRS, but the rules do make sense from their perspective. They are tax collectors...pure and simple. Over the years, industry had gotten to where they counted more and more people as IC's. Industry does this because they don't want to pay social security, medicare, severence, etc. on them. In theory, that is no big deal to the IRS because then the IC should pay self employment taxes on himself. But sadly that does not always happen. So, as the writer of the rules, it is easier to enforce a narrower set of IC rules on industry, so that industry will be the collector of the IRS revenue, and remit it to the IRS.

The fact that is costs a few jobs is not as important as collecting the revenue.

[atlcomedy]

1. I think it is naive to believe there will be sweeping changes in behavior from IRS agents because some guy mentioned them in his suicide note before trying to fly his plane into their building.

2. I have (knock on wood) avoided the Feds, but have had run-ins with 2 different State Dept of Revenues. If you think the IRS is ass backwards, wait til you deal with their local nieces and nephews. Both situations were very minor, but in one case took nearly 3 years to get to resolution in what was nothing more than a clerical error in the first place. But as one poster said the attitude clearly is that the taxpayer must prove their innocence not the other way around.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I don't want to put myself as a defender of the IRS, but the rules do make sense from their perspective. They are tax collectors...pure and simple. Over the years, industry had gotten to where they counted more and more people as IC's. Industry does this because they don't want to pay social security, medicare, severence, etc. on them. In theory, that is no big deal to the IRS because then the IC should pay self employment taxes on himself. But sadly that does not always happen. So, as the writer of the rules, it is easier to enforce a narrower set of IC rules on industry, so that industry will be the collector of the IRS revenue, and remit it to the IRS.

The fact that is costs a few jobs is not as important as collecting the revenue.

I'm not blaming the IRS for the rule, the responsibility for it lies with Congress. Studies done by the IRS and OMB have shown that the law has made no real difference in terms of revenue collection in the 20+ years it has been on the books. Congress could choose to repeal it but it does not look like that will happen.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Carl

It wan't about suicide. It was attempted mass murder. He flew his plane smack dab into the building where he was being audited. He clearly intended to take out as many people at the IRS as he could. He's beneath contempt.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

It was both.

In the same sense that the 9/11 crew were a suicide?

[WTF]

He declared War on the IRS.


Hello....could you find me a war anywhere where there were not innoccent people killed.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

...If you think the law is too complicated, complain to Congress. If you think that penalties for noncompliance are onerous, complain to Congress. If you think that employers should not be pursued for failure to pay over to the government the amounts withheld from their employees' paychecks, complain to Congress. If you think that there's a better system to assure that everyone pays the taxes they fairly owe under the law as written, so that the rest of us aren't faced with an even greater share of the burden, tell Congress.

Complaining to Congress does what, when Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commitee, is a tax cheat himself. He is being protected by the congress and I don't see any news where the IRS is banging down his door or seizing his property.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Complaining to Congress does what, when Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commitee, is a tax cheat himself. He is being protected by the congress and I don't see any news where the IRS is banging down his door or seizing his property.

Complaining to Congress has a better chance of success than complaining to -- or terrorizing or killing -- IRS employees.

As I recall, Rangel did acknowledge that he owed, and would pay, taxes on the income he omitted from his return. And that has all come to light so recently that it will take awhile for the IRS to determine whether penalties should apply -- and I'm betting that they will apply penalties, he'll pay quietly, and we'll never hear about it.

Any time politicians are caught having made mistakes on their taxes, they almost immediately confess to error and pay up. The IRS would come under a lot of pressure if they didn't seek the back taxes. More importantly, politicians pay up because otherwise it will be publicized heavily by their opponents in elections.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

Complaining to Congress has a better chance of success than complaining to -- or terrorizing or killing -- IRS employees.

As I recall, Rangel did acknowledge that he owed, and would pay, taxes on the income he omitted from his return. And that has all come to light so recently that it will take awhile for the IRS to determine whether penalties should apply -- and I'm betting that they will apply penalties, he'll pay quietly, and we'll never hear about it.

Any time politicians are caught having made mistakes on their taxes, they almost immediately confess to error and pay up. The IRS would come under a lot of pressure if they didn't seek the back taxes. More importantly, politicians pay up because otherwise it will be publicized heavily by their opponents in elections.

The IRS tends to make the collections from the common citizen or celebrity, i.e., Wesley Snipes, a public affair. Making a politician pay up quietly makes no sense when they use those public tactics to scare the general population into submission. If the public saw a very public example made of a politician, that would be more of a deterant to evade.

I find it ironic that some former IRS attorneys are now taking on case loads to fight the IRS.

Geithner's and Emanuel's tax problems both came up after their nominations and they were still confirmed. I, personally, believe in leadership by example and they do not deserve to hold public office.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

In the same sense that the 9/11 crew were a suicide?

Suicide is pretty well defined.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I find it ironic that some former IRS attorneys are now taking on case loads to fight the IRS.

No stranger than former SEC lawyers going to law firms and defending clients from SEC claims or former prosecutors heading up defense litigation practices at law firms.