Independence League Baseball

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873315318
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Spearfish, SD, USA
Phone
6056450416
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Professional Athletic Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$90,000
Expenses
$83,249
Assets
$19,671
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIC SCHMIDT (PRESIDENT)
  • LIZZY KOCER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ERIC SCHMIDT (PRESIDENT)
  • LIZZY KOCER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRYAN FREW (TREASURER)

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

Join separate teams that have a common purpose of playing in a league together while keeping day to day operations and equity interests separate. While each team has the ability to transact business in their own way, the bylaws set forth guidelines that all teams are to follow in the best interest of the league as a whole. The league itself has no profit motive. Collections of dues will be used to further the league as a whole and satisfy league-level expenditures.

What it reported doing in 2025

The league mostly performs the following administrative tasks: hiring and paying of umpires, promotion of the league, and league-level administration. 100% of expenses are covered by member dues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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: 47
  • Growth: 80

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: 7.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 199.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 9th 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: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.