Who is she? The head of the IRS during the scandal is in charge of Obamacare.

She also received over a hundred grand in bonuses.  Will someone explain to me why the IRS gets bonuses and under what conditions?  The number of conservatives thwarted?  The big question is who is she and why was she was put in charge.

She believes she should decide if your behavior meets her definition of good governance. Yikes!

I think if charges are forthcoming, you may find her name on the lips of the lower level employees who don’t want to go to jail.

Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harrassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.

More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency’s Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS’ regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.

Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.


The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harrassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., described the Ingram awards as “stunning, just stunning.”

Earlier Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported that the IRS paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the four-year period of Ingram’s awards to her and nearly 17,000 other agency employees. Those bonuses averaged more than $5,500 per employee.

There has to be more to this story, like how Cheryl Mills is the right hand man for Hillary and Bill’s impeachment lawyer back in the 90’s.   These people don’t go away, they stay loyal and simply recycle.

Who is Sarah Hall Ingram and why has she been given the power? Here is a speech from 2009 about good governance.  The PDF form didn’t copy perfectly over to the post .


What does “good governance” mean?I think it would be useful, as a beginning,to sketch out what I mean when I say“governance” or “good governance,” since there isn’t a universally accepted definition and everyone probably has his orher own idea of what the term ought to mean.
I’m using the term “governance” in a somewhat limited way. I’m not interested in trying to usurp the business judgment of an organization’s
officers or board of directors or trustees. Nor am I a micro-economist concerned with whether an organization is maximally efficient in the way it provides its charitable services to the public. I do think, however, that a tax-exempt charity should actually provide charity; it should provide some meaningful and measurable benefit or service to the public. Nor do I believe that the Service should try to lay down or enforce “one size fits all” rules about governance. Governance, after all, is not mathematics. There is not only one right answer or way of doing things. In my view, one of the great strengths of the non-profit sector is that it is a great engine of experimentation and new ideas. There can be, and should be, many varieties of good governance, many right answers.Nor do I mean the IRS should intrude on areas under the jurisdiction and supervision of the attorneys general or charity officials of the states. So if that is what good governance doesn’t mean, what do I understand that term to mean from a federal tax perspective? When I speak of governance, I am speaking of a number of key organizational and operating principles that the IRS has already articulated, and that find their origin in the Internal Revenue Code. They are not expressly laid out in the Code, nor do theyneed to be, but the principles of governance that are of concern to the IRS should derive from the requirements for tax exemption, and should aid an organization in meeting them. Let me identify several of them.
A foundational principle is that the organization should clearly understand and publicly express its mission. This helps assure that the organization provides a public benefit and does not drift away from a charitable purpose. It helps an organization avoid practices that are
inconsistent with tax-exempt status. Equally important is the principle that the organization’s board should be engaged, informed and independent. The board should have real responsibility and authority. It must, for example, be able to implement, in the life of the organization, the rules against in
urement and self-dealing.
Another set of key good governance principles are those relating to the proper use and safeguarding of assets. These principles are supported by policies and practices that address executive compensation, that protect against conflicts of interest, and that support independent financial reviews.
Transparency is another key principle. I believe that board decisions should be reflected in minutes, that records supporting decisions should be retained for reasonable periods, that whistleblowers should be protected, and that each year’s Form 990 should be complete, accurate and prepared in good faith.
My vision of governance is not of a vast scheme of rules, but of a more compact set of guiding principles. Not a battleship bristling with guns, but a sturdy lighthouse with a bright and steady beam. Others have certainly advanced the discussion – for example, the principles of good governance that Independent Sector and others within the tax-exempt community have articulated and proposed for adoption. For our part, the IRS has identified the principles we are most concerned with in the governance section of the Life Cycle tool on the Exempt Organizations website. They are also embedded in Part VI of the new Form 990.
I especially like the whistleblower protection statement.  I hope she feels the same way when her subordinates give her up.   Read the whole speech.  She likes the idea of no real rules just guidelines they can manipulate in order to make sure everything fits their definition of “good.”  This does explain the letter the one group got that they could be tax exempt if they didn’t protest abortion.
No wonder she is in charge of your healthcare. Imagine her applying her theory to you life?  Have you been a good citizen?  Or do I have to refuse you care?
Yep, lovely.
Oh here is HOW the IRS should find out who/what/why for an organization. I think if you read the whole thing you will see THIS is the outline the IRS used.   She has some explaining to do Lucie!  Just saying…
IRS Promotion of Good Governance
Somewhat controversially – at least to some – we have advanced the notion that there is a link between good governance and tax compliance. This concept seems intuitively true to many people. I certainly believe it; it does not seem like a controversial statement to me. But so me have challenged this association of good governance and good compliance – not by pointing out cases in which well governed organizations nonetheless seriously violated the Code and put their tax-exempt status at risk – but simply by saying the point has not been proved.
These critics often note that effective governance arises from intangibles – the dedication and diligence of responsible officers and board members – rather than from the adoption of
numerous rules and procedures. These, in their view, can pile up on top of each other to such an extent that they prevent good governance rather than promote it . Knowing who is right in this discussion is not easy.
We have set out to collect some information on the point. We are going to start asking agents, at the end of each examination, to fill out a check sheet about certain of the examined organization’s governance practices and internal controls. The check sheet is intended to identify instances of noncompliance found during the exam, and also to gather information about whether the organization had, and used, any internal controls.
For each instance of noncompliance found – excessive compensation, political intervention, inurement, private benefit, material diversion of assets – the agent should ask, who made the decision to do it or to allow it? Was there a policy in place concerning the transition or activity, for example, and if so, was it followed?
Let me be clear – we will be gathering objective data, not subjective views. And we will do this over time. As we collect enough information to be interesting, we’ll share it with the community, and everyone can have a go at it.
So SHE and her people have charged themselves with the task of monitoring whether or not an organization is too political or off track according to THEIR set of standards.  And if out of compliance, the groups can be punished.
Can I officially put on my tin hat and hit the paranoid button??


This entry was posted in contacts and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply