The Buckeye Institute

“President and CEO Robert Alt and Key Employee Rebekah Alt have a family relationship.”

“Organization's Process to Review Form 990: The President sends a complete draft copy of the Form 990 to all Board members for review. Both the independent auditor and President are available during the review period to provide explanations or additional information.”

“Enforcement of Conflicts Policy Board members and key employees are required to report any conflicts of interest annually.”

“Compensation Process for Top Management Official A salary survey is conducted on the Institute's behalf for positions in similarly situated organizations. That salary survey is used by the Board of Trustee members to guide salary decisions for the President. Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 15 (continued) Compensation Process for Other Officers and Key Employees A salary survey is conducted for positions in similarly situated organizations. That salary survey is used by the President and/or the Board of Trustee members who are not recused to guide salary decisions for key employees.”

“Governing Documents Disclosure Explanation All such documentation required by law to be publicly available are available to the public upon request.”

“The Buckeye Institute develops durable and replicable economic and legal public policy solutions to our great nation's most pressing problems. Buckeye's Economic Research Center (ERC) produces academic-quality, peer-reviewed, scholarly reports and dynamic models to assess the impact of various policy changes on state economies, businesses, and taxpayers. Buckeye's amicus brief filings and direct litigation seek to expand liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all Americans, protect individual rights, uphold the rule of law, limit government power, defend against encroachments on freedom and intrusions into citizens' lives, families, businesses, and property, which-we hope-will sustain our precious constitutional republic for generations to come. The Buckeye Institute Case Summaries for 2024 IRS Form 990 Filing”

“Buckeye v. IRS. The IRS requires 501(c)(3) organizations, including The Buckeye Institute, to disclose their "significant donors" via Form 990, Schedule B. The Buckeye Institute sued, claiming that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of private association in the First Amendment. The case is pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded.”

“Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury. John Ream, founder and owner of Trek Brewing in Newark, Ohio, would like to distill alcohol in his own home for personal consumption, which is prohibited by federal law. Ream sued, asserting that this law is unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority to regulate in-home distillation for personal consumption. The case is pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded.”

“Form 990, Part III, Line 4a (continued) The Big Board v. District of Columbia Department of Health. From 2020 to 2022, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., issued a series of 90-day emergency orders requiring eating establishments to check customers' vaccine status before allowing entry and requiring diners to wear masks. These rolling orders lasted two years. The Big Board sued, arguing that D.C. law did not authorize the Mayor to issue any emergency order lasting more than 90 days, and that re-issuing the orders was illegal. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that dismissal. No fees have been awarded.”

“Flannery v. Eckenwiler. From 2020 to 2022, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., issued a series of 90-day emergency orders requiring eating establishments to check customers' vaccine status before allowing entry and requiring diners to wear masks. Eric Flannery, owner of The Big Board neighborhood tavern, exercised his First Amendment rights by tweeting that everyone was welcome at The Big Board. When Mr. Flannery sought to renew his liquor license in 2022, members of the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 6C) protested, in apparent retaliation for Mr. Flannery's public comments. With The Buckeye Institute's assistance, Mr. Flannery defeated the protest. Mr. Flannery sued, and this case is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded.”

“Darling v. AFSCME. Plaintiffs are public employees who were previously union members but subsequently resigned. Although their unions accepted the resignations, they continued to deduct dues from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued to stop the wage theft and recoup their money. Plaintiffs assert that the contract, which requires plaintiffs to continue paying dues after terminating their membership, is invalid. The Common Pleas court dismissed the case, which was affirmed on appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. No fees were awarded.”

“Littlejohn v. AFSCME. In June 2022, Necole Littlejohn notified her employer and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Ohio Council 8 of the AFL-CIO that she was resigning from the government union. Although the union accepted her resignation, it continued to deduct dues and her vacation time for union activities. Littlejohn brought this case against the union to enjoin their wage theft and recoup her money. The Ohio Hamilton County Common Pleas Court dismissed the case, which is on appeal in Ohio's First District Court of Appeals. The case is pending. No fees have been awarded.”

“Schaad v. Alder. During the pandemic, Josh Schaad worked from home. Ohio House Bill 197, a temporary law passed during the pandemic, allowed municipalities to tax employees based on their "principal place of work" instead of the actual place of work. Effectively, Mr. Schaad was taxed by Cincinnati while he worked from home in Blue Ash. Mr. Schaad challenged the law, but the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Ohio House Bill 197. No fees were awarded.”

“Curcio v. Hufford. During the pandemic, plaintiffs worked from their homes located outside of the municipalities where they worked. Ohio House Bill 197, a temporary law passed during the pandemic, allowed municipalities to tax employees based on their "principal place of work" instead of the actual place of work. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of that law. Ohio's Sixth District Court of Appeals ultimately upheld Ohio House Bill 197. No fees were awarded.”

“Morsy v. Dumas/Morsy v. Gentile. During the pandemic, Dr. Manal Morsy worked from her home in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, rather than downtown Cleveland. Ohio House Bill 197, a temporary law passed during the pandemic, allowed municipalities to tax employees based on their "principal place of work" instead of the actual place of work. Dr. Morsy sued for a refund of those taxes. After the Common Pleas court ruled in favor of Dr. Morsy, the City of Cleveland agreed to 1) fully refund the taxes that were illegally taken from Dr. Morsy, 2) pay the interest owed to her according to Cleveland City Ordinance, and 3) reimburse her court costs. No fees were awarded.”

“Form 990, Part III, Line 4a (continued) Kresevic v. Chittok. Karen Kresevic worked at Akron City Hospital during the pandemic. After filing a wrongful termination claim, she and her employer reached a settlement agreement, which Akron taxed as if it were wages earned while working in Akron. In 2022, Ms. Kresevic requested a refund on the municipal taxes withheld from the settlement payment. Akron cited Ohio House Bill 197 and denied her request. Ms. Kresevic sued. Ms. Kresevic's claim is pending before the Ohio Court of Appeals. No fees have been awarded.”

“Wos v. Cleveland. Ohio's General Assembly passed House Bill 110, which allowed workers to seek tax refunds for work they performed outside of a city's jurisdiction in 2021 and 2022. Cleveland refused to follow its ordinances, which require the city to pay a refund within 90 days of receiving a tax return or else it must pay interest on the amount of the refund. Cleveland refused to pay plaintiffs the required interest. The case is pending. No fees have been awarded.”

“Doe v. City of Columbus. In 2022 and 2023, Columbus City Council passed an Ordinance banning the possession of gun magazines holding 30 or more rounds of ammunition. The Buckeye Institute sued on behalf of six residents challenging the ordinance because it violates Ohio's preemption law and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4. The trial court granted an injunction against the City enforcing the law. Columbus appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled that the preliminary injunction was not a final appealable order, which is the issue pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. No fees have been awarded.”

“Buckeye v. Columbus City Schools Board of Education. The Buckeye Institute sued Columbus City Schools seeking public records related to union dues deductions that were improperly withheld. The case settled. No fees were awarded.”

“Restate 12/31/2023 Accrued Interest Receivable 47,825.”