Tms Recycling Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461280355
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Carthage, TN, USA
Phone
6157351139
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Recycling Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$-38,161
Expenses
$61,704
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROGER BRADLEY (PRESIDENT)
  • CARROLL CARMAN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STEVE JONES (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ROBERT BADGER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ROGER BRADLEY (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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose is to promote and encourage the recyclying of natural resources of the counties in the north central planning region and to provide processing and marketing of recyclable materials for the region's citizens, industry, and govermental bodies.

What it reported doing in 2015

The four lake industrial development authority provides office and storage space for the recycling organization in exchange for agreeing to accept recyclable material from the state of Tennessee. The rental value is estimated to be $2000.00 per month.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -261.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -163.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -82.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.