Is anyone familiar with The Premier

[Lee Dennis]

Also, anyone that's ever been associated with ProVision or Premier as far as an executive team member, Michael Kaefes, Bill Lipkus, etc... Never mentions either ProVision or Premier in their LinkedIn profile.

 

[scagnt83]

I don't think they have an IRS Letter of determination.
But they supposedly have an opinion letter from a well known Top 20 law firm.

So they have spent money on an "opinion letter" from a top law firm and a top accounting firm. And they have spent money on multiple full page print ads in major national publications.

But the FREE PROCESS of applying for an IRS Letter of Determination, which is the only official document that legally can validate this "benefits plan", has not been completed yet...

Shady AF

Why have these professional firms not walked the company through obtaining an IRS Letter of Determination for this specific plan? Could it be that they are similar to the old 105 scams and the letters are not specific to this specific variation of the 105 regs? And why not post info publicly about the plan for agents to see? Could it be because thats how the old scams got called out within the industry?

Yep, it sure sounds like they fixed the holes... the holes in the scam that is...

 

[Lee Dennis]

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Lee Dennis]

svagnt83, you make a great point. I was curious how Provision would answer that so i put it to one of the owners and team leaders. Here's his response;

The answer I have heard is that if a company has a fully compliant plan that falls within the code and rulings, such as an HSA, or FSA, or 105 supplemental insurance plan, the IRS does not issue such letters. It is a total waste of time and government resources to do so for every company's benefits plan. It is beyond the scope of that function IRS provides. Letters of determination only apply to programs that fall outside the parameters of long established interpretations of the code and industry standards.

You don't need to get a separate DOT Certification if you want to produce a Camry with a different paint color or interior seat material meeting industry standards. Everything we do with the PA falls fully inside the code interpretations and industry standards. The fact that we are making a private loan to the employees completely separate from the insurance plan is simply complying with IRS ruling 2002-80 where they specify that an employer can not make such loans, but a third party non-beneficial party can. Since that's what we do, the IRS has already ruled and won't give us a Letter of Determination. We have had discussions with top IRS legal counsel about the program. The indication is that they don't endorse any programs, and a letter of determination does not apply to us because they don't do those things that fall fully within the code and rulings like our plan.

 

[scagnt83]

svagnt83, you make a great point. I was curious how Provision would answer that so i put it to one of the owners and team leaders. Here's his response;

The answer I have heard is that if a company has a fully compliant plan that falls within the code and rulings, such as an HSA, or FSA, or 105 supplemental insurance plan, the IRS does not issue such letters. It is a total waste of time and government resources to do so for every company's benefits plan. It is beyond the scope of that function IRS provides. Letters of determination only apply to programs that fall outside the parameters of long established interpretations of the code and industry standards.

You don't need to get a separate DOT Certification if you want to produce a Camry with a different paint color or interior seat material meeting industry standards. Everything we do with the PA falls fully inside the code interpretations and industry standards. The fact that we are making a private loan to the employees completely separate from the insurance plan is simply complying with IRS ruling 2002-80 where they specify that an employer can not make such loans, but a third party non-beneficial party can. Since that's what we do, the IRS has already ruled and won't give us a Letter of Determination. We have had discussions with top IRS legal counsel about the program. The indication is that they don't endorse any programs, and a letter of determination does not apply to us because they don't do those things that fall fully within the code and rulings like our plan.

Not even close to being accurate. Ive worked with some of the top ERISA attorneys in the country on benefits and retirement plans. That response is completely void of reality.


Of course they cant and dont issue letters for every company with a benefits plan.

But they can, do, & will issue letters for every type of benefits plan.

A plan utilizing the code in a way that has been established in guidance, determinations, & case law has no need to apply. This plan in no way falls into that category. In fact, the IRS and EBSA have shut down plans almost exactly like this one in the past for violating those very regs mentioned.

So why on earth would the IRS not want to make a determination on a plan 99% similar to one they previously found to be in violation?? That makes zero sense.

Especially since the IRS highly encourages plans to apply for a Letter of Determination if they are a variation of a previously disallowed plan.

Not only is this exactly the type of thing the LoD process was designed for. Its one of the exact examples they have used in guidance as a reason to apply for a LoD before going live with the Plan.

-----

LoD applications are always accepted and considered. There is nothing stopping them from filling out the 3 page application and providing the supplemental info requested.

If a Plan falls under previously established guidance or case law, they reply with a letter saying so.

If a Plan does not fall into established guidance, but is deemed valid, they reply with a Letter of Determination saying so.

If a Plan does not meet regulatory standards, they reply with a Letter of Determination saying so.

No matter what, there is nothing stopping them from applying and showing the response as validation that they are within established regulatory guidance.


----


More points about the statement to show how out of touch it is from reality:

- "Top IRS legal counsel" only meets with a company if there is a court case. At most a company might get a 30min meeting with a regional auditor/attorney to answer questions on a broad basis.

- Of course the IRS does not "endorse" benefit plans. But they do "approve" benefit plans from a regulatory standpoint to determine if they fall within the scope of the law or not... which is the LoD process.

- The last 105 scam (that the IRS & EBSA shut down) also used a 3rd party lender. But assuming for a second that fixed the previous non-compliant plan.... again, changes to a previous disallowed plan is exactly the type of situation the LoD process was created for.

----

Yes, those sections of the tax code mentioned are well established. But how this plan utilizes those tax codes in this specific way is not well established at all. In fact, the plan itself claims to be the only one of its type in existence.... which by definition means this plan set-up does not have long standing rulings, guidance, or determinations from the IRS. Any and every type of benefits plan utilizes long standing tax codes... what makes it compliant or not, is the way they interpret those laws and utilize them within the plan.

Every disallowed/fined/shut down/jailed plan that existed was attempting to utilize those or similar sections of the tax code. Its HOW they utilized them that was the issue.

----

I have yet to find mention of any TPA being involved. Something like this not only requires tons of admin, but also requires a ton of regulatory expertise surrounding that admin. Using a TPA firm (who is essentially vouching for the validity of the Plan) is another way non-standard plans show themselves to be valid. Not only that, but it usually makes financial sense to outsource the task as well. If they are not using a well known TPA firm to run the admin, thats another red flag.

-----

The RPT Plan (Restricted Property Trust) is a great example of the exact opposite of this situation. Penn Mutual is the carrier partnered on the RPT Plan.

It utilizes the Welfare Benefit Plan tax code. There have been a lot of abuses of that tax code in the past, lots of Plans were deemed in violation and shut down, fined, etc. The traditional use of the code was not the issue. It was the non-standard variations that had never been ruled on before that got into big trouble.

But this CPA/Agent figured out a variation within the code he felt was within regulatory guidelines. First thing he did, before the idea was ever mentioned publicly or pitched to an agent or carrier, was obtain an IRS Letter of Determination. Why? Because he knew that no insurance carrier out there would ever take part in the Plan without one. Same for any serious agent, ERISA attorney or TPA.

That letter is what proves his welfare benefit plan is valid when the many others in the past were not. That letter is what every client's CPA and Attorney ask for when an agent pitches a RPT Plan to a business. Get my point??


----


I wont even waste my time with the useless auto industry analogy that has no bearing on the financial industry and tax code at all. But its certainly another huge red flag that this is just another scam.

 

[scagnt83]

Scagnt83
Thank You for your response. Sounds like I have a lot to learn about Section 105.

You are welcome.

Most everything that I posted was more about benefit plans in general and how they operate within IRS regs and guidance.

----

Section 105 of the tax code covers a wide variety of "Plans". To call something a "section 105 plan" is not an entirely accurate term. A "Section 105 Employee Reimbursement Plan" is what most are referring to if that term is used.

But IRC.105 covers a range of plans. HRAs, HSAs, & Self Funded Groups fall under Section 105 of the tax code.

This is how all benefit plans work. Your 401k... its IRC.401(k) ("section 401(k)" of the tax code).

----

Here is a very basic overview of a traditional "Section 105 Employee Reimbursement Plan". https://www.tasconline.com/biz-resource-center/plans/section-105-plan-3/

In short, it allows a business to reimburse employees for medical expenses. That reimbursement is usually tax-deductible to the business. Some types of insurance premiums can be included in the plan to be deducted as well, to an extent (life/disability/dental are a few).

I would encourage you to google the term and read up about them. Tons of info online if you look.

----


If you want to know the basics of how the previous 105 Scam operated (Cl*ssic 105, Tot*l Fin*nc*al Gr*up) (you can fill in the blanks, the last threads mentioning them got locked down).

Here is an article about a city that almost implemented it for their employees. The city attorney and other legal experts shot it down after the city performed due diligence. Good thing since that group and their scam 105 plan was shut down by authorities...

City leaders abandon consideration of health costs plan


"met with the committee in person to pitch the plan, which he said allows employers to reduce FICA contributions when an employee funds their own Medical Reimbursement Account.

The employee takes out a loan to fund the contribution, which is paid back with the savings the employee gets on their paycheck given a small tax contribution. The loan itself is guaranteed through the purchase of a life insurance policy."

"Group would take approximately $1,400 pre-tax per month from an employee and issue $1,000 back to the employee in the form of a loan which is secured by a credit life insurance policy.

The owner of the policy -- a third-party investor -- essentially loans the plan participant a portion of the policy each month. TF Group says that the loan is not a reimbursement or advance for medical expenses and is really just a loan."


"Interest on the loan is paid by TF Group from the fees already paid into the program. The program is renewed each year, and any money left over in the employees medical reimbursement account is kept by Total Financial Group.

"TF Group makes no mention of what happens to the money that employees contribute to their medical reimbursement accounts at the end of the year," the opinion read. "IRS regulations require the unused portion of a medical reimbursement account to be used for health care. Does TF Group keep this money? If so, it could be a violation of federal law."

In addition, TF Group realizes that neither 105 plans nor 125 plans can meet Affordable Care Act requirements on their own and thus requires groups to establish an ACA-compliant employer-sponsored group plan.

"The IRS has made it clear that an employer may not either directly pay premiums for individual policies or reimburse employees for individual premiums on either an after-tax or pre-tax basis," the opinion read. "If the Classic 105 does allow employers to reimburse or directly pay for individual premiums, that arrangement could be out of compliance with federal law and lead to penalties imposed upon the employer."


Now this scam was a variation of an old plan that was already shut down by the IRS/EBSA and had multiple IRS rulings against it. They changed a few tiny details, claimed it "fixed the problems" but never sought an IRS Letter of Determination. The reasons why became obvious when the feds busted them.


This new scam claims to have fixed the issues with the old scam. But still is not seeking a Letter of Determination. Just like the old one. Same story, different name.

And the insurance carriers and major TPA firms would JUMP at the chance to work with a plan such as this if it were compliant. So why arent they?? The answer is obvious by now hopefully... lol.

 

[scagnt83]

And here are the previous threads about the old 105 scam

https://insurance-forums.com/community/threads/section-105-benefits-plan.52463/

https://insurance-forums.com/community/threads/total-financial-group.84149/

 

[BusterA]

This group has advertised heavily on Craigslist and other free forums for years. They just took out a full page ad in the WSJ in Sept of 2020. Yes, red flags galore. If you go to the Linked in page of the only real life people listed on the premier alternative web page - those people (one who has filed for bankruptcy in the last few years) do not even list their connection with Premier. A friend who invested years ago (apparently only the initial MLM part of this may have made money ) admits there appears to be no bonafied customers yet. Apparently the guy who runs all the calls goes by the name of Dennis Lee (a fellow who promised free electricity machines in the 90's and now calls himself Josiah David. The plan seems similar to the 105 plan that has left the Joachims convicted and likely facing extended jail time.

 

[scagnt83]

You mean the "Dennis Lee" that is posting on this thread?? Go figure! .... LOL

 

[BusterA]

There is a "Lee Dennis" who seems relatively skeptical on this thread. But he "Dennis Lee" I'm talking about is well described at
One Man's Power Game and
Dennis Lee - Better World Technologies and United Community Services of America - The Skeptic's Dictionary Those link describe his previous"investment opportunities" before his more recent entry into questionable 105 promises