5 ms·
if you're not profitable, there should be no tax advantage, right?
by abfan1127 3y ago
if you're not profitable, there should be no tax advantage, right?
- mistrial9 3y agono that is not the test for nonprofit status
- hx8 3y agoOpenAI was a 501C3. This meant donors could give money to it and receive tax benefits. The advantage is in the unique way it can reduce the funders tax bill.
- somedude895 3y agoA donation is a no strings attached thing, so these donors basically funded a startup without getting any shares?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lolinder 3y agoOfficially, yes, but the whole situation with Altman's firing and rehiring showed that the donors can exert quite a bit of control if their interests are threatened.
- jprete 3y agoThat wasn't the donors' doing at all, though. If anything it was an illustration of the powerlessness of the donors and the non-profit structure without the force of law backing it up.
- hackerfoo 3y agoUnless the donors were already owners.
- Aloisius 3y agoDonors can't be owners. Nonprofits don't have shareholders.
- michaelt 3y agoDonations are not entirely without strings. In theory (and usually in practice) a charity has to work towards its charitable goals; if you donate to the local animal shelter whose charitable goal is to look after dogs, they have to spend your donation on things like dog food and vet costs. Charities have reasonably broad latitude though (a non-profit college can operate a football team and pay the coach $$$$$) and if you're nervous about donating you can always turn a lump sum donation into a 10%-per-year-for-10-years donation if you feel closer monitoring is needed.