Leuva Patidar Samaj of USA

Legal name: LPS of USA Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205846705
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Brentwood, TN, United States
Phone
(866) 201-2353
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hinduism
Affiliation
Hinduism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$666,940
Expenses
$584,962
Assets
$3,800,273
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dipak Patel (President)
  • Alpesh Patel (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Dipak Patel (President)
  • Alpesh Patel (Vice-President)
  • Girish Patel (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Preserving Our Heritage • Strengthening Our Community • Inspiring Future Generations. We all know that we have come from the state of Gujarat in India, but now let us check into the History of Leuva Patidars. Who are we? Where did our forefathers come from? These are some of the questions our children may ask. The burden of responsibility falls on us to provide all the information to our children to fulfill their curiosity about the Leuva Patidar identity, culture, and history. The following data is compiled from several sources and in certain places its accuracy may be questionable, but overall, the data is accurate enough to log this information for the future generations. The Leuva Patidar also known as the Leuva Patel of Gujarat is the descendant of the Aryan Race. It is,.

What it reported doing in 2025

Conferences, conventions, meetings and group sessions designed to promote Indian culture and values.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.3%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.5; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 83 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $475K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.