Golden Tax Relief Enters Top 500 Of Inc. 5000’s Fastest Growing Businesses

Sep 9, 2022

Ranked No. 410, Golden Tax Relief has entered the top 500 of Inc. 5000’s list of fastest-growing businesses in 2022.

Elmhurst,United States - September 9, 2022 /PressCable/ —

Golden Tax Relief has announced that it has been named one of the fastest-growing businesses by Inc. – the prestigious US business magazine. The tax consultancy entered the top 500 of the Inc. 5000 list.

More details about the Inc. 5000 honoree can be found at https://www.inc.com/profile/golden-tax-relief

The Alabama company, which assists businesses and individuals in resolving IRS issues and reducing tax liability, has had a 1,487% growth over a three-year period. As such, it has earned its spot among the top 500 most successful American companies that have a median revenue growth rate of 2,144 percent over the last three years – up 1,820 percent compared to the previous year.

Inc. 5000 honors the most successful companies in America. “To qualify, companies must have been founded and generating revenue by March 31, 2018,” explained an Inc. representative. “They must be US-based, privately held, for-profit, and independent.”

Founded in 2017, Golden Tax Relief has been providing tax planning services for individuals and businesses in the Chicagoland area and throughout Clark County, Alabama. Over the course of three years, the firm has experienced accelerated growth – its annual revenue exceeding $100,000 in 2018 and $2 million in 2021.

“At Golden Tax Relief, our values include peace, protection, and posterity,” said Ben Golden, Founder and CEO. “Our goal is to help our clients feel at peace by representing them knowledgeably, to protect them by working within the confines of their rights, and to let them know that their posterity will be secure in the years to come.”

The firm, a first-time Inc. 5000 honoree, provides custom tax plans to reduce tax liability. Its certified tax planners develop legal strategies and opportunities for tax reduction with the goal of increasing retirement savings for individuals and enabling growth for business clients.

“Taxes are a necessary part of business, but there is no reason you should pay any more than legally necessary,” said Ben Golden. “That’s why I started Golden Tax Relief – to proactively assist high-income business owners to legally reduce their tax liability.”

Interested parties can learn more about Golden Tax Relief at https://www.goldentaxrelief.com

Contact Info:
Name: Jacinta LeDonne
Email: Send Email
Organization: Golden Tax Relief
Address: 100 South York Street Suite 214, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126, United States
Website: https://goldentaxrelief.com/

Source: PressCable

Release ID: 89081308

If you detect any issues, problems, or errors in this press release content, kindly contact [email protected] to notify us. We will respond and rectify the situation in the next 8 hours.

More News

Why your health insurance is dropping GLP-1 coverage

Oct 15, 2026

Why your health insurance is dropping GLP-1 coverage

The promise of GLP-1 drugs has always depended on people being able to afford them. These drugs still cost hundreds of dollars per month if you’re paying cash, at which point access becomes a privilege: The higher-income executive who wants to trim a few pounds might be able to afford them either way, but the low-income worker who needs the drug to lose significant weight might not be able to afford them — unless their health insurance covers it. For a while, the trend lines for GLP-1 insurance coverage were positive. As of 2026, roughly two-thirds of private employer plans, which insure half of Americans, were covering GLP-1 medications for weight loss to treat obesity. Over the summer, Medicare launched a new $50-per-month prescription program. The US has struggled with an obesity epidemic for decades, but it looked like powerful drugs to treat it were finally starting to be more seamlessly integrated into the health system. At least that’s how things appeared earlier this year. But now, private plans are pulling back from GLP-1 coverage. People are being left in the lurch, debating whether to try to pay for these drugs on their own or stop taking medicines they feel are making a real difference for their health. The dilemma reveals one of the structural flaws in American healthcare. For working-age adults, your insurance depends on your job. Unfortunately, because people no longer stay at the same job for decades, there is not a strong financial incentive for employers to make investments that will benefit your health in the long term — but there is a strong incentive to minimize short-term costs as much as possible. It’s the kind of perverse rationale that could compel employer-sponsored health plans to stop covering a drug that, if taken over the full course of a person’s life, could help them not only lose weight but ultimately reduce their risk of heart disease, kidney disease and other chronic health problems, improving their health and saving all of us money as they get older. “An employer or an insurer making coverage decisions doesn’t necessarily care if they’re saving Medicare money,” said Dan Sacks, a healthcare economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “That’s a classic problem with the American health insurance system, and it’s certainly salient here.” This mismatch between what’s good for people’s health and what’s good for the corporate bottom line has long been one of the underlying flaws in the US health system. Now access to GLP-1 drugs is shrinking just as these drugs were starting to make a real dent in the US obesity crisis. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Why employer-sponsored health plans are suddenly dropping GLP-1 coverage From the beginning, insurance coverage was the big question hanging over GLP-1s and their potential to revolutionize US healthcare. But recently, it looked like we’d turned a corner. When I attended the Aspen Ideas: Health festival this summer, pharmaceutical reps seemed visibly relieved that GLP-1 coverage had been picking up among private insurers. In 2026, about two out of every three employer-sponsored plans were covering some of these drugs for weight management, up from about 20 percent just the year before. “They’re recognizing that this is an investment in their workforce,” said Laura Steele, who leads the cardiometabolic health unit at Eli Lilly, which manufactures Zepbound and Foundayo. “Yes, there is a budget, and there is a benefit design that every employer has. That’s real. That’s not going away. But they’re also recognizing the overall cost that they’re experiencing by not dealing with this too.” But as employers and private insurers make coverage decisions for next year, they are suddenly pulling back. At least 10 percent of employer plans that currently cover GLP-1s for weight loss say they are likely to discontinue coverage in 2027, according to one survey by the Business Group on Health — and that number may still increase. A Mercer survey of large employers found that 6 percent had dropped coverage in 2026 and another 5 percent were planning to in 2027 or actively considering it. A separate report from the Health Policy Commission in Massachusetts found that the number of commercially insured people in the state taking a GLP-1 drug had fallen by 50 percent between 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 as private coverage started to drop off.  Some of the biggest brands in the US are reportedly eliminating or reducing their coverage: PepsiCo, Starbucks, and Lowe’s among them. And their reasons are simple: It’s too expensive. The drugs still carry a high net price tag — $600 or more for a 30-day supply — and potential demand is high (2 in every 5 American adults have obesity).  When a lot of people start taking an expensive medication all at once, it’s going to raise costs for employer insurance plans — and they have to figure out how to adapt. Insurers set premiums at the start of each year, based on how many people are on the plan and how much healthcare they are expected to need. But if those estimates are off — say, if more people take an expensive GLP-1 drug than the insurer expected — they have to offset those costs somehow, and raising premiums the following year is a common solution. According to one estimate, premiums are projected to grow by 5 to 13 percent due to GLP-1 costs — and the burden of paying those higher premiums is likely to fall on the workers. The employer can also try to limit GLP-1 use by, for example, asking workers to pay more out of pocket for these drugs; according to Mercer, 27 percent of large US employers instituted some kind of utilization controls for GLP-1 drugs over the past year or plan to next year. They also have the option to simply stop covering these drugs for weight loss altogether — and that’s the route more and more of them are deciding to take. The abrupt reversal has even caught economists like Sacks off guard. 3 big reasons employer health plans are dropping GLP-1 coverage Employers aren’t invested in people’s long-term health: As Americans switch jobs more often, companies want to cut short-term costs. GLP-1 prices are still high, upwards of $600 per month per person for insurers. A lot of people are eligible to take them for weight loss; 2 in 5 US adults have obesity. “I was surprised that anyone would do an about-face because I thought they understood the trade-offs well,” Sacks said. “My guess is that it turned out to be more expensive than they anticipated: take-up is higher, and possibly more people are sticking with it. That’s one reason that you might not want to continue to offer it.” For employers, the short-term costs of covering a drug often outweigh the long-term benefits that medication may confer, at least from the employer’s POV. One analysis — notably produced by Blue Cross Blue Shield Kansas — concluded that covering GLP-1s for weight loss increased average employee health costs by $7,000 in the first year and another $4,200 in the second, largely due to the cost of the drugs themselves. And yet at the same time, there were no decreases in obesity-related medical events in that time period. Another study from Sacks and his colleagues at Indiana University and the University of South Carolina found that GLP-1 use did not lead to any cost savings over five years. So in the short term, these employers are arguably making an economically rational decision — but one that may still come at their employees’ expense. “I’m completely screwed,” said one person on Reddit about Cigna’s plans to drop GLP-1 coverage for their own employees. They’re looking at at least $300 for one month’s supply at cash prices.  They weren’t alone either: “I’m devastated,” said another person, commenting on Starbucks’s decision to stop covering GLP-1 drugs. They said they had an autoimmune condition that had made it difficult to lose weight — until this new class of medicines came along. Where GLP-1 coverage goes from here How could we end up here, where it makes good business sense for companies to make a decision that could potentially harm their workers’ health in the long term? It is at least in part a result of the haphazard way the US has ended up insuring people. When employer-sponsored insurance started to arise in the mid-20th century, eventually becoming the primary way to cover the working-age population, people tended to stay at the same job for a long period of time. In theory, there was a synergy: Companies wanted their workers to stay productive, and so it was worth it for the company to invest in their long-term health via their insurance benefits. And research has found that people who stay with the same company — and the same insurance plan — tend to have better health than those who switch a lot. But these days, people change jobs all the time or work various gigs to piece together an income. You probably don’t expect to stay at your job for 10 years — and your employer doesn’t expect you to either. Instead, they want to keep their own costs as low as possible in the short term. This leads them to cut GLP-1 coverage, even though doctors do believe that people could benefit tremendously long term from the weight loss these drugs help them achieve and all of its potential health benefits.  “There are very real health benefits of these drugs,” Sacks told me. “The fact that we don’t find offsets or they’re even more expensive than we thought doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t cover them.” Sign up for the Good Medicine newsletter Our political wellness landscape has shifted: new leaders, shady science, contradictory advice, broken trust, and overwhelming systems. How is anyone supposed to make sense of it all? Vox’s senior correspondent Dylan Scott has been on the health beat for a long time, and every week, he’ll wade into sticky debates, answer fair questions, and contextualize what’s happening in American healthcare policy. Sign up here. In theory, the market is supposed to fix the

YOUR NEWS, OUR NETWORK.

Do you have Great News you want to tell the world?

Be it updates about your business or your community, you can make sure that it’s heard by submitting your story to our network reaching hundreds of news sites across 6 verticals.

Central News Today

Central News Today breaks down complex issues with unique perspective, bringing high-quality journalism to millions of readers around the world.

NEWSLETTER