**Welcome Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion readers! Thanks Prof. Jacobson for making this your ‘post of the day’!**
The IRS scandal is a very tangled web and I think it will be a while before we realize the depths of the issue. Just how many IRS officials are involved and how many organizations were targeted? The President is feigning ignorance while Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner, resigned earlier this week. For critics of this administration, this means little, as Miller was apparently resigning next month anyway.
Today we learned of a second resignation.
An internal IRS memo says Joseph Grant, commissioner of the agency’s tax exempt and government entities division, will retire June 3. Grant joins Steven Miller, who was forced to resign as acting IRS commissioner on Wednesday.
As part of his duties, Grant oversaw the IRS division that targeted tea party groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
In her Townhall piece earlier today, Katie Pavlich mentioned some people we should be looking at. She mentioned Douglas Shulman, Lois Lerner and Nan Downing, none of whom have talked of stepping down.
Now another ‘person of interest’ is in the spotlight. I bring you Sarah Hall Ingram.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
No, not kidding, wish I was. Ingram’s move to the Obamacare office was considered a promotion, but wait, it gets better.
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.
Is that precious? I have the same question Dana Loesch does.
I wonder if Sarah Hall Ingram’s bonuses were based on the number of tea party groups her dept. harassed. #HowDoesSheStillHaveAJob
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 16, 2013
I believe that adherence to principles of good governance is entirely consistent
with both your task to accomplish your charitable objectives, and ours, to see that
the tax-exempt sector complies with the Code. Indeed, I think practicing good
governance helps advance these goals. I see good governance, then, as a tool
– something practical and useful.
Hmmm…so good governance is targeting multiple conservative organizations and refusing to grant their tax exempt status? This is exactly why we need to make sure the IRS has nothing to do with our health care.
Update #1: Linked by Aaron Hill’s Notebook, thank you!
Update #2: Thanks again to Prof. Jacobson of Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion for making this the post of the day (5/17/13)
Update #3: Linked by The Free Republic, thank you!
Update #4: The Examiner has updated their article highlighting Ingram’s bonuses, raising an important point.
Bonuses as large as those awarded to Ingram typically require presidential approval, according to federal personnel regulations.
So Mr. President, did you approve Sarah Hall Ingram’s $103,390 in bonuses? Remember….transparency.