zlacker

This does not solve the company's California AG problem.

https://www.plainsite.org/posts/aaron/r8huu7s/

>>thinkc+(OP)
This could all be easily covered over with a few billion dollars. This is just some guy that thinks too small.

>>thinkc+(OP)
Hey I know something about this! I just mailed my organization's RRF-1 a couple of days ago. The author of this post seems to be confused. My organization is on the same fiscal year as OpenAI, and our RRF-1 had to be mailed by November 15th. That explains the supposed "six month" delay. Second, if it's mailed on November 15th, it might not have even been received yet, let alone processed. This post feels like grasping at straws on the basic facts, setting aside the fact that it just doesn't make any sense to imagine a board member filling out the RRF-1 and going "oh wait, was there financial fraud?" the morning of November 15th. (That's ... not how the world works? Under CA law, any nonprofit with 2M of more in revenue has to undergo an audit, which is typically completed before filling out the 990, and the 990 is a pre-req for submitting the RRF-1. That's where you'd expect to catch this stuff, and the board's audit committee would certainly be involved in reviewing the results well in advance.)

>>alexal+rs
The six-month delay is probably due to an automatic extension if you get an extension from the IRS, and also, you can file the form electronically, in which case mail delays are not a problem. But neither of those issues is the point. The point is that the form needed to be filed at all, and representations needed to be made accordingly.

OpenAI handled their audit years ago and hasn't had another one since according to their filings. So that does not seem like it would have been an issue this year.

Take a look at the top of the RRF-1 for the instructions on when it's due. Also, the CA AG's website says that OpenAI's was due on May 15th. They just have been filing six months later each year.