Greater Atlanta Boston Terrier Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331989897
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Woodstock, GA, USA
Phone
8655821044
Rating confidence
Limited

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,249
Expenses
$423
Assets
$14,570

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOMINIC KOON (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • KAREN BOGENHOLM (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DOMINIC KOON (PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • KAREN BOGENHOLM (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BELINDA SALVESON (SECRETARY)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Organization's primary exempt purpose. The greater atlanta boston terrier club(gabtc) was formed as a local specialty club under the umbrella of the american kennel club. The club serves the interests of a single breed, in this case, the boston terrier on a local level. The club has one sole activity (100 percent) and that is to serve the boston terrier breed by holding conformation shows, junio showmanship, handling classes and public education concerning the breed. The club sponsor and coordinated with other local clubs and the national club for items important to the breed such as rescue efforts, health research, and health testing guidelines. The club donates to research and efforts that support the betterment of the boston terrier. We work with the akc to educate the public on the breed sing educational materials created by the akc, the national boston terrier club ore research materials that pertain to the health and wellbeing of the boston terrier.

What it reported doing in 2025

No grants were issued this year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 66.1%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 34.44; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 141.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 5 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.