I've Met Andrew Stack...

Reading this article in the Wall Street Journal confirms what I'd already suspected: I've met Andrew Stack. Actually, I've met him more than once. When you're in the business of public accountancy, you can bet money you'll cross paths with him at some point in your career.

Upon hearing that Stack had flown his plane into an IRS field office, I already knew who I was dealing with. The Andrew Stacks I've met are in their late 40s or early 50s. They're highly intelligent, well educated, trained in a professional and with entrepreneurial experience. Beyond that, they have five defining personal characteristics, which are as follows:

• Andrew Stacks are arrogant: Convinced of their intellectual superiority, they will neither seek nor accept counsel.
• Andrew Stacks are insecure: Because it threatens their sense of self, they refuse to acknowledge their errors.
• Andrew Stacks are unteachable: Because they refuse to acknowledge their errors, they never learn from them. When their history is reviewed, a pattern of repeating the same errors is almost always present.
• Andrew Stacks are irresponsible: When they fail - and they usually do, for the reasons listed above - it is always somebody else's fault.
• Most of all, the Andrew Stacks of the world are greedy. 

In other words, the Andrew Stacks of the world lack the most fundamental trait required for their business success or personal happiness: Common sense. Andrew Stack was a fool, and that - rather than any sort of "government persecution" is why he ended up dead.

Andrew Stack had no legitimate grievance with the federal government of the Internal Revenue Service. Note how he characterized his first battle with the IRS:

Mr. Stack, a 53-year-old computer engineer, apparently first flirted with tax protests in the early 1980s. At that time, the fad among protesters was to declare their households to be churches, then claim exemptions meant for nonprofit religious institutions.

Mr. Stack apparently tried something similar—in hopes, he wrote, that his actions would spark debate and prompt reform of the tax code. Instead, he wrote, "that little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0."

That's bullshit. Self-serving bullshit. What motivated him was greed, not patriotism.Stack wasn't interested in either sparking debate or prompting reform. He wanted to get out of paying his taxes, and he didn't care whether he broke the law to do so.

I saw assholes like Andrew Stack by the dozens in the '80s and 90s. They'd go to a seminar given by some con-artist and come away convinced the federal income tax was illegal and therefore needn't be acknowledged by filing returns or paying taxes. Or they'd be sold on the idea they could declare themselves a church, a charity or a business and avoid taxes by various and sundry stupidities such as declaring their income as nontaxable donations or deducting their household expenditures as legitimate business expenses.

And...

When I tried to explain to them that what they were doing had already been contested in court, and was illegal, they smirked and informed me I just wasn't smart enough to get it. They were greedy, and their greed combined with their natural arrogance lead them to disaster. Andrew Stack lost $40,000, 10 years or his life and his retirement plans because he decided paying taxes was for other people.

Andrew Stack also showed his greed and a complete lack of common sense in his fight with the government over Section 1706:

Mr. Stack next turned his energy—and his outrage—to fighting a provision of the 1986 tax- law overhaul, Section 1706, which made it difficult for computer engineers to work as independent contractors. Mr. Stack, who then lived in California, wrote that he spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars lobbying politicians to change the law, but got nowhere.

Section 1706 of the IRS code was part of 1986's TEFRA tax reform bill. What it was designed to end was computer software companies and computer software engineers abusing independent contractor status to avoid legitimate payroll taxes. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that only a fool would think he could lobby Section 1706 out of existence without army of lobbyists and tens of millions of dollars. It was put into place to end an abusive situation that was industry-wide.

Had Stack the sense, what he would have done was hire a damn good CPA and a damn good tax attorney and spent less than ten thousand dollars ensuring his business struck an appropriate balance between tax minimization and compliance with 1706. That's what successful businessmen do; they adapt appropriately to changed circumstances. Stack then followed that adventure up by failing to file several years worth of state business tax returns as well as a 2003 federal personal tax return.

This is not a man who learned the lessons life was trying to teach him.

Finally, it's worth noting that if Stack's accountant screwed up his last return, that's one thing. He could have sued him for malpractice. But both Stack and his wife had the duty to review their return. If Stack's accountant had, for whatever reason, failed to include $12,700 of income, that is precisely what Stack had a duty to catch before signing and sending the return. I'm willing to bet cash money that Stack was quite aware that the return was missing that income, and he chose to sign and send the return anyway.

Like I said: Some people simply never learn.

In short, I don't see Andrew Stack as either a terrorist or a victim. I see him as a fool. Ask any CPA who does tax work, and he'll probably be able to tell you of more than one Andrew Stack he's met over the years. I've met them, I've tried to help them, and I've watched them ruin their own lives and the lives of others. I have no sympathy for their "plight" because their plight is always something they've worked quite hard to acquire. It's what fools do.

Update: Unsurprisingly, Andrew Sullivan gets it all wrong:

But I want to make a few simple points: this was obviously an act of terrorism. When someone is mad at the government, and when he flies a plane into a federal building, killing two and traumatizing countless others and urges others to do the same, he is a terrorist.

Bullshit.

Sullivan, being both lazy and superficial, reads Stack's manifesto and takes it at face value. What Sullivan doesn't understand (surprise!) is that Stack's manifesto is what every manifesto is: Advertising. That manifesto was written to sell others the idea of Stack's victimhood. That manifesto was written to willfully disguise the fact that Andrew Stack troubles were the result of years of his own greedy foolishness.

Andrew Stack was mad at the government, true, but that fact does not morph a tax cheat into a terrorist. That's the reality here: He was a garden variety tax cheat. Stack's motivations - based on the facts of his life, and not upon his "manifesto" - were not rooted in civic-mindedness, but in greed. He didn't want justice, he wanted to skip out on his tax bill. And when he did attempt to engage politically by lobbying against Section 1706, he did so for personal gain, not public good.

Andrew Stack wanting to pretend to be a political actor doesn't make him an actual political actor.

Andrew Stack was a tax cheat and nothing else. His woes were not the product of a government run amok; they were the product of a foolish man making - repeatedly - foolish decisions. If Andrew Sullivan had done his homework on Stack's history, and was a less sloppy thinker, he'd have realized that. But then, if Sully had done the work and then thought things through, he wouldn't be Sully.

Comments

[just passin by]

Stack was a terrorist AND a nut, but most terrorists are nuts to begin with. And whether it comes down to religious supremacy or personal arrogance, it's still nuttery.

[Mike C.]

Nice to see that consultants bit pop up again. Not.

Latest I've heard is that consultants all hide their income from the IRS. That's funny - I get 1099s, and I sure don't assume the IRS didn't note them.

[JeffS]

I've met Andrew Stack before as well. I'm not a CPA, but I do deal with the public and government regulation, and there's always someone who thinks that the rules don't apply to them.

I dislike stupid, byzantine rules and regulations as much as the next person. But they are the rules, and you have to deal with them.

[ZT]

Your bullet points describe Obama too.

[just passin by]

Good one, ZT; we're just glad Obama is murdering the economy, and not actual human beings.

The bullet points also describe Amy Bishop(btw, I'm NOT saying she killed because she was a leftist).

Highly successful people that can't admit any failure on their part (in business or academia) and go nuts. I'm surprised there's not more of them.

[Lefty]

"Andrew Stack was mad at the government, true, but that fact does not morph a tax cheat into a terrorist."

I guess flying airplanes into buildings don't make you a terrorist either.

[richard mcenroe]

Lefty, by your definition every pissed off postal worker or Jody Foster Fan is a terrorist.

[Lefty]

I guess Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber weren't terrorists either.

[Randy Rager]

Ok Lefty, I'll grant your premise.

Andrew Stack was a typical mainstream Leftist, i.e., a dangerous terrorist that should be locked up because they might commit suicide in a manner designed to murder as many other people as possible to make a political statement.

Be careful handing those premises out, you never know what we'll do with them.

[Randy Rager]

The funniest part of all this is that agreeing with Dennis would be the smartest thing for Lefty to do. After all, Andrew Stack used some pretty hefty Lefty rhetoric in his rantifesto: Bashing Bush, big business and health care while ending the whole shebang with a Marxist quote. A smart Lefty would be doing everything possible to downplay the terrorist nature of Stack's actions.

Too late now.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Lefty-

If you're being obtuse on purpose, you're very good. If not, you're an ass.

[Randy Rager]

Does being an ass on purpose count for anything?

If so, I've got a career!

[dicentra]

Dude:

The characteristics you listed are textbook symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (except the DSM doesn't use those exact words).

One more thing: when you get into an argument with them, it's not long before you realize that the sky is a different color in their world.

Only a Narcissist would very publicly plow a stolen plane into a building after very publicly posting a manifesto on how his unique perspective on the world entitles him to take drastic action.

And yeah, Obama's a Narcissist, too, but he won't fly a plane into a building; he'll just drive the entire world economy over a cliff.

[JeffS]

If you're being obtuse on purpose, you're very good. If not, you're an ass.

I vote for ass.

[Lefty]

The FBI's definition of a domestic terrorist courtesy of Kevin Drum, who btw doesn't believe Stack was a terrorist.

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve (1) acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (2) appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (3) to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (4) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

dicentra George Bush already drove the entire world economy over the cliff.

[JeffS]

Stack does not meet all of your posted criteria, Lefty. Specifically, (2), as one lone nutter can hardly intimidate a civilian population once he's offed himself. A group, yes. Stack, now that he's a crispy critter, no. Same thing for (3), which does not include "suicide attacks by lone nutters". The September 2001 suicide attackers, though they can also be described as nutters, were not alone; they were supported by an foreign organization that planned to continue their campaign plan.

And that's the difference here: Stack's "campaign plan" was to commit suicide and murder in a gruesome but pointless fashion. Once he's dead, he's dead, a martyr only unto himself. Because he acted alone. Unlike the

So I agree with Kevin Drum in this case.

Oh? You still don't agree? There's more available information on the FBI's definition? Better learn how to link then, Lefty, 'cuz I'm taking what you posted at face value.

George Bush already drove the entire world economy over the cliff.

Not quite. Bush turned the car towards the cliff, with the willing support of Congress. Obama has his hands on the wheel, and foot jammed against the accelerator. Congress is hanging on for the ride.

PS: As I noted in another thread here, given a choice between you being slyly obtuse or just an ass, I vote for ass.

[JeffS]

Whoops! I meant to say:

"Unlike the terrorists who supported and/or died in the 2001 terrorist attacks."

[just passin by]

"(2) appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"

I stand corrected. Stack was not a terrorist, just a nut.

Are you trying to argue that Stack WAS a terrorist, mark/anon/lefty/elliot?

You just convinced me otherwise. Congratulations on another fine example of liberal logic!

[Lefty]

I guess it all depends on how many follow his lead. I have no problem with people who hate our government committing suicide but when they decide to take others with them I draw the line.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/patriot-movement-calling-joe-stack-hero/story?id=9889443

Joe Stack Hailed as Hero in American 'Patriot' Resurgence

Expert: Online Cheers for Joe Stack Reflect Growing Anti-Government Movement

[ThomasD]

I can think of multiple reasons why Stack could be described as a form of terrorist.

But, most tellingly, I think it important to remember a narcissist like Stack commits his deeds solely for his own sake, with little if any consideration of (or for) the perceptions of others. Therefor his act lacks the requisite intent to incite terror.

[Lefty]

With little if any consideration of (or for) the perceptions of others?

The guy burned down his house, tried to kill his family and flew a plane into a building in downtown Austin TX after leaving a 6 page suicide note/manifesto. This guy was going for maximum media coverage and said so in his manifesto.

[JeffS]

From your link, Lefty:

"Extremist groups are already aligning behind [Joe Stack], beginning to talk about him as a hero," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center which studies American militia and hate groups. "The growth of those groups has been astounding."

We now get into the definition of "extremist". Lefties (in general, but the "social conservatives" do this as well) tend to paint with a broad brush. In their perspective, "anti-tax" and "fiscally conservative" tends to get mixed with "anti-government" because, to them, government is all about taxing and spending. Why else have government, they ask, if not to run things? Since it takes money to run things, being against (excessive) taxation and (irresponsible) spending is the same as being against the government.

And if you are anti-government, you are likely an extremist. Just ask the Department of Homeland Security.

Which is the general trend of that article. It's all about "anti-government" people. It ignores the possibility that people are for small government, and don't mind paying reasonable taxes for essential items. After all, TANSTAAFL.

Being anti-tax is not anti-government. I see a definite need for government. I just don't agree with the current trend of Uncle Sugar getting into my savings to pay for their irresponsibility.

So all your article proves is that some people are anti-government. Not how many. And that's it. Their approval of Stack's action (which is reprehensible, IMHO) is not proof of any sort, save that they are angry nuts. And they are no different than the lefties who openly advocated soldiers killing their officers and deserting. Or assassinating then-President Bush. All of which was in line with the desires of Osama bin Laden.....are they left wing terrorists, or lone nutters?

And, no, Lefty, it doesn't depend on how many people follow his lead. Stack acted alone. He was a terrorist only in his mind, which we all agree was not working in a sane fashion.

And in your mind as well, which ought to concern you mightily.

[Munch]

Not a terrorist. Just a horrorist, not to be confused with this guy.

[just passin by]

"We now get into the definition of "extremist". Lefties (in general, but the "social conservatives" do this as well) tend to paint with a broad brush. In their perspective, "anti-tax" and "fiscally conservative" tends to get mixed with "anti-government" because, to them, government is all about taxing and spending. Why else have government, they ask, if not to run things? Since it takes money to run things, being against (excessive) taxation and (irresponsible) spending is the same as being against the government."

Excellent summary.

[Hoodoo]

Dennis - You are the most cogent AND entertaining political blogger out there. Thanks for making sense of the mess every day!

[NC Mountain Girl]

I am a retired CPA and I also met Andrew Stack a number of times. I once did some pro bono work for Mrs. Stack, too. After several years of marriage, she realized that her soon to be ex hubby hadn't been filing legitimate tax returns. Filing late returns on the separate return rate schedule put her in a deep hole made worse by a practitioner who didn't even try to make a case that the late filing penalties should be abated.

[ThomasD]

This guy was going for maximum media coverage and said so in his manifesto.

Talk about missing the obvious.

Yes, he was going for maximum coverage for himself. Everyone else was just a means serving his all encompassing ends, the only point of their existence was to serve as props in his master performance. that's what I mean by 'with little if any consideration of (or for) the perceptions of others.'

What part of narcissism = all about me don't you get?

Oh wait, you don't get much of anything do you?

[Rollory]

I approve of tax cheats on general principles.

I myself wouldn't go out of my way to get the buckets of trouble that being a tax cheat gets you, but anybody else who wants to do so certainly has my approval.

Also, if you need to pay a CPA to do your taxes, you're working too hard. Go play some video games instead.

And don't quote Southern Pathetic Lying Center, please. Don't give them any attention at all.

[Nodrog]

I see the usual bashers of the "right-wing terrorist" warnings of the Obama administration last year are rearing their ugly head on your blog, Dennis.

I'd say that anyone who kills himself by flying into an IRS building with the idea of taking out a few revenooers with him may not only be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, but is trying to instill terror into a significant-sized population, that being the population of IRS agents. And the target of that terror is a target for political reasons, not for the reasons that motivate deranged postal workers or killer ex-husbands.

Where I disagree with Sullivan is that I think this guy would have gone off regardless of whether Dennis' beloved "Bambi" was President or not. I suspect we'll be seeing actions by those more directly motivated by Tea Party insanity over the next few years.

[just passin by]

Any bets on whether Nodrog's rice bowl would be broken if the government was forced to spend responsibly due to the Tea Party "insanity"?

Remarkable how many NPOs are funded by government grants, and that the people that "work" at these NPOs are fervently liberal. Of course there's always plenty of liberals that work directly for the government, too.

[Lefty]

Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address: "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

If you are anti- US government enough to consider someone a hero for flying a plane into a building to kill himself and innocent people he didn't even know for the crime of working for that government you aren't any better than Al Qaeda. Got that?

If you don't like the USA's $12 trillion dollar debt then blame it on the people who gave it to us. That would be the modern Republican party who starting with Reagan passed tax cuts the nation couldn't afford.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have stuff like a 700 ship navy, Stars Wars, trillion dollar wars you keep off budget thru "supplementals", a huge Medicare drug bill, and trillions for Wall St bailouts and not pay for it. That's the legacy left by the 28 year long experiment you guys ran on the USA.

Reagan's tax cuts, Bush's tax cuts none of them came close to paying for themselves. And just because you fucked up by believing that shit and still can't face up to the fact that it was an utter failure doesn't mean the rest of us are going to keep playing. We're going back to what works.
It's as simple as that.

[Randy Rager]

Reagan didn't pass tax cuts. The Democrat's in Congress passed tax cuts without also passing spending cuts, despite Reagan's best efforts to the contrary. And they've kept that up, to the point of filibustering when in the minority, to this present day.

You can take your "Blame Republicans" effort, print it out on high grade photo paper, fold it till it's all sharp corners and shove it straight up your ass.

Douchebag.

[markm]

Terrorist bombing was invented by 19th Century anarchists, who were pretty nearly lone nutters by definition, rarely able to organize three people before interminable arguments broke out. (And leftists, not libertarians - they hated capitalism and private property, too.) It was a tactic that didn't require organization to implement, although having a "discussion group" cheer them on would have increased the motivation. And it could be effective at intimidation, if there were enough lone nutters of similar opinions to keep the bombs coming.

Fortunately, suicidal narcissists are even rarer than organized anarchists. You won't ever see enough of them to overcome people's natural aversion to caving to lone nutters.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Lefty-

Remove everything other than the word "simple" from your comment and you've found the truth as you know it.

[dick]

Coming from an accounting family, I've listened to this post verbally many times before today.
Nice to see somebody put it in writing.

[Lefty]

Show me the budget surpluses Reagan and Bush ran up. What's that? The tax cuts didn't balance the budget? Of course they didn't. George HW Bush was right when he called it voodoo economics in 1980.
Growth in the 1980s was on a par with the 1970s and way below that of the 1990s.

The radicals like Reagan and Norquist always had it wrong. To cut spending enough to match those tax cuts you'd not only have to gut federal regulatory agencies which eventually led to the 2008 banking disaster you'd have to end Medicare, Social Security and shrink the military to a size comparable with the rest of the world's. That's where we spend that kind of money. The American people aren't gonna stand for any of that.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Right. Whatever.

[Randy Rager]

The '90's? You mean the tech bubble exacerbated by Herr Klintoon turning a blind eye to Wall Street corruption?

I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't. It was dumber than fucking dirt.

[max]

Funny but while I didn't quite go as far as you, I did recognize the man early in his manifesto, when he talked about the church declaration scam. Bad memories of still being foolish enough to think I could actually convince people like this that there are obvious differences between a legitimate religion and their house. But he wasn't a terrorist, and it looks like the guy who was killed was incidental, he was a rather straightforward suicide with the whole "that'll show them" attitude.