The latest tax filing for EAA shows it to be on solid financial footing, with an overall profit of $4.82 million on revenue of $53.9 million for the fiscal year 2025. The organization’s Form 990 was released last week and shows that AirVenture is by far its biggest source of income, with the 2024 show grossing about $24 million on expenses of about $16 million. Sport Pilot magazine and the heritage flight programs essentially broke even, and EAA used some of the profits from the programs in the black to pay for services to chapters and members. The profit for the 2025 return was more than double that of 2024 and came from an increase in revenue while the organization held the line on expenses.
As for executive compensation, Chairman Jack Pelton, who functions as a CEO, earned a total of about $850,000. James Busha, VP of membership, marketing, and publications, made about $410,000, and the eight senior execs below them earned between $180,000 and $315,000. EAA had total assets of $91.8 million against liabilities of $48.5 million for net assets of $43.3 million.
Good work Jack and Team! Lessons here for AOPA to learn..
Great headline for a non-profit organization. The IRS might be curious about all that “profit”.
Mark Baker reportedly made 2M at AOPA and helped run it into the ground. Pelton makes a much more appropriate $850K and the organization is thriving. That tells me something about the cultures of the two organizations, to which both I currently belong.
EAA is a non profit organization! So where did EAA place this supposed excess of funds, the $4.9 million? I presume it was provided to the EAA Air Museum and other aviation EAA related non profit organizations. Getting the facts strait matter. And you are short. Sorry! If the IRS reads what you have written, it will invite scrutiny from them. Very wrong of you to do this!
Nonprofits like EAA can and should make a profit to remain sustainable and grow.
Profits are used for operational reserves, new programs, or expansion, building cash reserves, protecting against economic downturns or reduced donations.
Nonprofits still pay market-rate salaries, rent, and expenses, so generating a surplus is necessary to cover these costs.
The IRS was well aware of this before you tried to set the author strait today.
Writing a review for a non profit as a for profit organization is definitely misleading and probably unlawful. Using the word profit with a non profit organization is definitely an unlawful deception. As you stated, any excess funds go to any number of needs; which should be acknowledged; and the word profit never used with a non profit organization. So no one is confused. As stated, this is the way it is done at all non profit organizations that I know. The misleading use of the word profit with any non profit organization will only create trouble. And to say the IRS is well aware of anything is also very misleading; and probably wrong. You leave me non plussed telling me what I already know but thank you for that anyway. More important, young people who are not accountants need this kind of delineation to avoid confusion.
Sorry, Terry, but profit is an accurate term to reflect that $4.9 million and the IRS knows all about it because it was the result of calculations made on an IRS form that was submitted to them as required by law. The real issue is how it is spent and that’s why there are so many schedules and appendices with this return. The IRS needs to have proof the money is used to benefit the organization and its programs
and not individuals. In return, it does not charge income tax on that profit.