International Maple Syrup Institute Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 981050398
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
- Location
- Salem, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5188547669
- Rating
- 90
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $95,842
- Expenses
- $102,922
- Assets
- $115,460
- Liabilities
- $1,800
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Genevieve Clermont (President)
- Peter Christopher (1st Vice President)
- Philippe Breton (2nd Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Genevieve Clermont (President)
- Peter Christopher (1st Vice President)
- Philippe Breton (2nd Vice President)
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
The International Maple Syrup Institutes (IMSI) purpose is to act on behalf of the maple industry on issues affecting the interests and the economic viability of the various
What it reported doing in 2025
Our organization lobbies on behalf of the Maple SyrupIndustry to promote the sale and awareness of the variousMaple Syrup Products produced by our members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -7.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $103K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.