American Legion Post #55

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030173356
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Brandon, VT, USA
Phone
8022475709
Rating
33
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$91,035
Expenses
$87,760
Assets
$79,097
Liabilities
$20,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • AARON TUCKER (Commander)
  • GEORGE PALSHAN (1st Vice Commander)
  • KENNETH BANNISTER (2nd Vice Commander)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To Uphold the Bylaws of the Vermont & National American Legion while Supporting Civic Activities

What it reported doing in 2025

Membership Dues, Community Donations & American Flags

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 9
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.7%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 10
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.7% of revenue deployed · 10.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.