Thursday, June 1, 2017


Thus, the core purpose and effect of the the participation in a Sea NineVeba Plan is to provide participants with a mechanism to accumulate wealth for their personal benefit, unlawfully protecting that income from federal taxation by treating it as a welfare benefit when it was that in name only. Sea NineVEBA participating employees were able to deduct the entirety of their substantial contributions- and then realize the complete benefit of those contributions later when they left the VEBA. Even though the Defendants purport that their VEBA plans conforms to the Tax Code, in substance they do not at all- a fact of which the Defendendants are well aware.


  1. The "Tax Resolution" Offices of "Lance Wallach"
    5 1 6 - 9 3 8 - 5 0 0 7 Nationwide Assistance
    Contact Us
    Expert Witness Services
    Why Choose us
    Choose This Tax Resolution Office Now

    To Get An Expert On Your Side

    Lance Wallach, Managing Director, is the nation's leading expert on "employee benefit plans", "tax problem resolution" and IRS audits defense. Mr. Wallach's team of highly experienced tax attorneys, CPAs, and ex-IRS agents have helped his clients save hundreds of thousands of dollars successfully defending them in lawsuits and "IRS audits".
    "lance wallach" “abusive tax shelter audit” "tax letter" "irs letter" "irs letters" "irs determination letter" 419e 412i 6707a "form 8886" "listed transactions" "abusive tax shelter assistance" "irs penalty abatement" "expert witness irs" veba "expert witness services" "expert witness irs help" "pension audit" "Grist Mill Trust" Benistar "SADI Trust" "Beta 419" "Millennium Plan" Bisys "Creative Services Group" "Sterling Benefit Plan" "Compass 419" Niche "Sea Nine Veba" 419 412i 419e "expert witness insurance" "welfare benefit plans" "419 plan help" "expert witness irs" “Lance Wallach” “419 plan help” “412i plan help” “tax resolution services” “irs problem solvers” “form 8886” 6707a “irs letter” “abusive tax shelters” “abusive tax shelter” “listed transactions” “listed transaction” “8886 help” “expert witness” “insurance expert” “tax expert” “irs a

  2. As an expert witness Lance Wallach side has never lost a case

    FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2013
    Could We Have This Debate Before It Is Too Late? Lance Wallach, expert witness.
    Is the use of fully insured group health insurance products as stop-loss coverage for group health plans going to remain a viable solution?

    The obvious question that follows is: Are State Departments of Insurance Compelled by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) To Limit Fully Insured Health Products to Minimum Essential Benefits?

    Short answer is a resounding No. This is an intriguing question which is being hashed out across our land and I am sad to say that most DOIs are getting it wrong. Section 1301, Paragraph (b), 1, A, the ACA is very clear in its definition of a health plan:

    1) Health Plans—

    (A) In General.—the term ‘‘health plan’’ means health insurance coverage and a group health plan.

    Did that come through? “And a group health plan”.

    One of the things that came out of the ACA, which I only hear complaining about, is the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) mandate; 80% of small group (99 and under) and 85% of large group premium dollars must go to fund patient care. This puts fully insured products in the strange position of being underpriced as a stop-loss product.

    Fully insured as a stop-loss is underpriced for a couple reasons.

    1. Traditional stop-loss runs at a Medical Loss Ratio somewhere around 60%. The difference of 20% - 25% should jump off the page when you think about this.

    2. The risk. Specific deductibles of $20K - $50K or more turn into standard deductibles of $5 - $25K. The biggest thing about this is that we are working with “standard” deductibles which limit deductible count to one or two per family and I am not speaking of aggregate v. embedded, I am truly speaking of one or two deductibles per family.

    Just when this is dawning on the market and employers are finding ways to offer truly affordable benefits to their people, some state departments of insurance have disallowed High Deductible Health Plan (HDHPs) from existing legally in their state. Instead they might consider requiring health plans to comply with the ACA and keep offerings as diverse as possible to allow the market to function and keep prices down.

    Let’s do a quick mental exercise to illustrate my point. Track with me on premium costs for a moment: Premiums rise exponentially as deductibles go down. If the desired effects are lower costs, then it makes sense to raise my deductible… But what if I raise only MY deductible and leave my employees with the same rich benefits that are currently in place? This lowers costs while staying within the bounds of the ACA because I am doing it all under a “group health plan.” Add to this logic some actuarial data: If 25%-35% of premium costs are associated with Rx copays and 20%-30% of premium costs are attributable to office visit copays, then I can lower premium costs by 45%-65% merely by removing them from the insurance and putting them