Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
||||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 1,046,721 | 1,431,928 | 1,133,631 | 1,664,860 | 7,792,446 | 13,069,586 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 1,046,721 | 1,431,928 | 1,133,631 | 1,664,860 | 7,792,446 | 13,069,586 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f) .. | 6,925,847 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 6,143,739 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 1,046,721 | 1,431,928 | 1,133,631 | 1,664,860 | 7,792,446 | 13,069,586 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 28,885 | 77,908 | 41,848 | 10,347 | 18,206 | 177,194 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 172 | 173 | 169 | 169 | 178 | 861 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 13,247,641 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included on line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by 0.035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2022 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2022 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2022 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2022: | ||||
| a From 2017....... | ||||
| b From 2018....... | ||||
| c From 2019....... | ||||
| d From 2020....... | ||||
| e From 2021....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2022 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2017 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2022 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2022 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2022, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2022. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2023. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2022..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 1 | THE LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION (A MISSOURI NON-PROFIT CORPORATION) IS A NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM COMMITTED TO PRESERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT, SEPARATION OF POWERS, FEDERALISM, ADVANCING AN ORIGINALIST APPROACH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFENDING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SPECIALIZING IN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND LITIGATION, LANDMARK'S LEGAL PROGRAM PROVIDES EXTENSIVE PUBLIC EDUCATION RELATED TO CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, THE PROPER ROLE OF JUDICIARY, AND GOVERNMENTAL INTEGRITY. |
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A | UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Biden v. Texas -- Landmark is supporting the States of Texas and Missouri in their challenge of the Biden Administration's termination of the "remain in Mexico" program. The Foundation argues that the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency decision making. West Virginia v. EPA - The question before the U.S. Supreme Court is to decide whether the EPA can issue a rule that would transform how our nation generates electricity. The case involves a rule known as the Clean Power Plan. Implementing the CPP would force coal and natural gas electric power plants out of business and impose hundreds of billions of dollars in costs upon the American people. EPA is doing this without any clear Congressional authorization and it's up to the Supreme Court to curb this enormous regulatory power grab. Landmark supports the State of West Virginia in this important case. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee -- Landmark filed briefs at both the writ of certiorari stage and merits stage on behalf of Election Integrity Project of California and Election Integrity Project of Arizona. We argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not prohibit a state from enacting a ban on ballot harvesting, a practice fraught with the potential for the casting of fraudulent ballots. The Supreme Court agreed with Landmark's position and upheld Arizona's ballot harvesting limitation. California v. Texas - Landmark supported Texas in its challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The case addresses whether or not the individual mandate, which the Supreme Court earlier upheld as a tax, remains Constitutional when the tax is zero. While the individual mandate is still in place, Congress reduced the penalty for noncompliance to zero dollars. Landmark was the only legal organization that briefed the tax issue in the original Obamacare case. In the current case, Landmark demonstrates that the individual mandate no longer has any characteristics of a tax and therefore is not Constitutional, neither under the taxation clauses nor under the Commerce Clause. Adir International, LLC v. Starr Indemnity -- The State of California imposed an onerous consumer protection statute that allows the state to cancel Directors and Officers Liability insurance policies when a business is merely accused of violating one of California's extremely vague consumer fraud or false advertising laws. Landmark was joined by additional tax-exempt organizations claiming that California's statute creates a danger that the state could target organizations based on the content of their programs. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Ritter v. Migliori --Landmark filed a brief in Ritter v. Migliori urging the Supreme Court to vacate a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision from the Third Circuit would allow federal courts to overturn the Commonwealth's absentee ballot protections using an extreme reading of federal civil rights statutes. The Supreme Court vacated the decision and directed the Third Circuit to dismiss the case. Louisiana v. Biden - "The Most Important Number You've Never Heard" -- the "social cost of carbon" -- is a concept used by regulators to estimate whether a proposed environmental regulation is worth the "cost." All regulations have a financial effect on the economy, but environmentalists argue that there is a cost to society from not acting and letting industry emit more carbon dioxide. This "social cost" could be the effect of global warming on agriculture, public health, the economy, sea levels, etc. It is obviously very theoretical and hard to quantify with any kind of precision. But the Biden Administration is trying to mandate that the federal government use a high number, which would justify more regulation. Landmark's brief argued that the mandate came not from an administrative agency, but from a legally questionable committee that operates with no legislative authority. This number most people have never heard of will have billions of dollars in consequences to our economy and would certainly make energy prices higher. Landmark filed a brief in support of energy producing states who are challenging the Biden Administration in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled that the states lacked standing to challenge the regulatory action and the Supreme Court agreed. Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; U.S. Supreme Court) -- Landmark filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing on behalf of the petitioner in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. The Department of Homeland Security created a program allowing nonresidents on F-1 student visas to stay in the country for up to three years after graduation. The Optional Practical Training program is not a statutory creation, but instead was an improper administrative creation. In its current iteration, the OPT enables over 200,000 nonresidents to work in the United States despite being admitted under a student visa. The majority of these OPT graduates come from STEM fields, and often work for large tech companies. Moreover, the petitioners assert, "the OPT program has grown to surpass H-1B as the largest guest worker program in the entire immigration system." This massive worker program exists in contradiction of the F-1 student visa requirements. These requirements, laid out by Congress in the INA, state that a nonimmigrant student must be "a bona fide student" who seeks to enter the Country "temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study." But as we argue in our brief, a "full course of study at an established college [or] university" does not encompass working for companies like Microsoft or Apple. Regulatory Proposal Comments Independent Contractor Rule Landmark filed comments opposing a Department of Labor proposed rule severely restricting the ability of independent contractors to remain independent of employers. The rule is designed to appease labor unions, who want to organize more and more workers. In January 2021, the Trump Labor Department proposed a rule to clarify independent contractor classifications. Under this rule, factors of the economic realities test would be used for Wage and Hour Division matters. The Trump proposal reduced the likelihood of costly court disputes, but organized labor objected that the new rule encourages businesses to hire ICs more liberally. The Biden Administration reversed course. Its new rule discourages the hiring of freelancers and other contingent workers. Downstream of this hiring slowdown, the Proposed Rule will inflict deleterious results on the broader economy. Landmark's comment focused on the practical implications of the Biden proposal. Ranging from owner-operator truckers to freelance musicians, over 64 million independent workers practice their trade across the United States. In addition to driving billions of dollars in commerce, these independent workers enjoy the freedoms afforded by their IC status - namely, setting their own schedule and feeling like their own boss. The proposed rule would jeopardize all these workers' incomes and quash their sense of economic freedom. Investigative Projects American Federation of Teachers -- We have been hard at work extending Landmark's voter integrity program to examine the political activities of a major public sector labor union and whether it complies with federal tax, election and labor disclosure laws. We have amassed significant evidence indicating the union uses general treasury revenue to finance political activities and does not report those expenditures on its tax returns as required by law. A comprehensive complaint was completed and filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Landmark is also investigating the union's conduct during the pandemic to pressure school boards and administrators on matters ranging from political elections to leftist curricula to an array of Covid-related restrictions and spending demands. Information is coming in from across the country from Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, New York, and others with strong union affiliates. Merrick Garland School Parent Intimidation -- Landmark filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Justice seeking records relating to Attorney General Garland's October 4, 2021 Memorandum directing the DOJ to investigate parents who express their 1st Amendment rights at local school board meetings. Landmark's Request received expedited processing and responsive records are expected soon. In the meantime, DOJ has denied Landmark's fee waiver request. We anticipate suing to resolve the fee waiver issue (and reserving the right to amend a complaint should the production be insufficient) in the nex |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING FIRM PREPARES AND REVIEWS THE FORM 990. THE 990 IS THEN REVIEWED BY THE ORGANIZATION'S MANAGEMENT. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THE ORGANIZATION'S MANAGEMENT HAVE ARE ADDRESSED AND ANY CORRECTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS ARE MADE PRIOR TO FILING THE 990. A FINAL COPY OF THE 990 IS SENT TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO FILING. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | COPIES OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY WERE GIVEN TO ALL STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS. DISCLOSURES ARE MADE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. THE BOARD DECIDES WHETHER THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED OR NOT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A & 15B | ALL COMPENSATION DECISIONS FOR OFFICERS AND STAFF ARE MADE BY THE FULL BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PRESIDENT ANNUALLY. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN SETTING HIS COMPENSATION, AND ONLY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OTHER OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. OFFICERS' COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF COMPENSATION REPORTED ON SIMILAR PUBLIC-INTEREST LAW FIRMS' ANNUAL FORM 990 TAX RETURNS. IN ADDITION, AN EMPLOYEE'S YEARS OF SERVICE, PERFORMANCE, AND THE ORGANIZATION'S FINANCIAL CONDITION ARE GIVEN CONSIDERATION. MODEST AD HOC PERFORMANCE BONUSES HAVE BEEN AWARDED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. (NO BONUS OR OTHER COMPENSATION LEVELS ARE EVER BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY RAISED BY THE ORGANIZATION.) LANDMARK PROVIDES FULL HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE TO ALL FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. THE FOUNDATION ALSO PROVIDES AN EMPLOYER-FUNDED PROFIT SHARING PLAN AT A LEVEL SET ANNUALLY BY THE FULL BOARD IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EMPLOYEE-FUNDED 403B RETIREMENT ANNUITY PROGRAM. THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER COMPENSATION PROGRAMS SUCH AS SECTION 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS, CAR REIMBURSEMENT, HOUSING OR EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, CELLPHONES, ETC. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE ORGANIZATION'S GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. |
| FORM 990, PART VII, COLUMN F | UP TO 80.5% OF "OTHER COMPENSATION" REPRESENTS THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS, WHICH HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLED SINCE PASSAGE OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |