[thinkcomp]

This isn't quite right. Federal law requires that citizens be allowed to make requests in person. Trespassing is a state statute in each state. In general, federal law supersedes state law. Asking to see a non-profit's public records in person is not trespassing because it's expressly authorized by law.

[jhgg]

That is unfortunately not how the law works. I am not a lawyer, but I have studied this a bit in passing. It's important to understand the interplay between the scope of the law, private property rights and also reasonableness. Although 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) mandates that the documents be available for inspection and copying upon request, it does not say anything about allowing civilians to remain on the property beyond the reasonable scope of inspecting these documents. Generally, laws are interpreted in the context of what's reasonable. It's unreasonable to interpret 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B) as allowing someone to stay on private property indefinitely. If they don't have the documents available, and ask you to leave, private property rights apply here and you must leave. The penalty you can seek for non-compliance clearly defined as a $20/day fine, not that you can continue to stay on the property and repeatedly ask for something they do not have a day before a holiday. The Supremacy Clause does not apply here, because there's no inherent conflict. The federal law does not explicitly (or implicitly) state that you can stay on the property after asked to leave, and thus it cannot trump state law. The fact that the initial presence on the property was for a legal, civil purpose does not provide ongoing protection from criminal trespass charges if an individual overstays their welcome or refuses to leave when asked.

[thinkcomp]

Happy to look at any legal citations to caselaw you have. But generally there's a difference between "stay[ing]" a prolonged period of time and being able to even get in the door to make the request in the first place, which is explicitly allowed by federal law. And the documents were available.

[jhgg]

Right, but the penalty for non compliance here is a $20/day fine. No where does the law state that you're granted license to enter the building if they refuse you entry or deny your request. You made your request, they refused and asked you to leave. Your only valid recourse here is to file a complaint with the IRS and let them do their thing. Alternatively return after the holiday break when the office has the staff there that can fulfill your request.

[thinkcomp]

Ironically, we don't know what the penalty for non-compliance is because we don't know the non-profit's gross receipts are for its most recent complete tax year. If they are over $1 million, which is plausible, the daily penalty is $100/day not to exceed $50,000. See 2022 Form 990 Instructions, page 81. Not that this really matters.

The crux of our disagreement is whether they have the right to refuse entry. They can [unlawfully] deny a request I suppose and just choose penalties over compliance, but when it comes to denying the ability to lodge a request in person with the associated "immediate" timeline, there are First Amendment interests at stake and I think the federal constitution, if not federal preemption, wins.

In this specific instance, it wasn't clear to me what, if anything, the security guard had done or intended to do with my name and ID information (which is not needed to file a request for tax forms). So I didn't feel as though a specific request had even been filed. He wouldn't provide his name, he wouldn't allow me to speak to anyone with any knowledge of the issue, and I had nothing in writing. From my perspective, OpenAI prevented a request from being filed after its accountants said that they had the documents but that the non-profit's offices were the proper place to lodge a request.

On top of all of that, the 2022 IRS Form 990 instructions (page 79) refer to "the room" and the requirement that the member of the public "must" be allowed to "take notes freely." Outside on the sidewalk is not a room where you can take notes.

[baking]

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-...

"What should I do if an exempt organization will not let me see its Form 990 or 990-T returns or exemption application materials?"

[QuantumGood]

"Write to IRS EO Classification, Mail Code 4910, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242. Your letter should provide the name and address of the organization that refuses to allow public inspection or provide copies of its documents, and request that the documents be made available for public inspection.

"The Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division of the IRS will contact the organization and arrange a time during which the documents may be inspected. If the organization fails to provide the documents at the agreed upon time, statutory penalties may be assessed.

[opello]

The IRS documentation also says to ask the "responsible person" so if someone approached the public office with the intention of interacting with the responsible person and they were unavailable, and the person spoken with essentially "took a message" how does that not basically conclude the submission of the request?

I also infer that the clock starts upon the scheduled viewing, not automatically once the request was made, but I could be missing a nuance.[1] Specifically, " Timely Response to Requests".

[1] https://www.stayexempt.irs.gov/se/files/downloads/Required_D...

[sangreal]

You can start with Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid.

[godelski]

INAL but this really doesn't pass a sniff test, same with what the journalist is saying. If the people are gone they're gone. If you show up to a company at 1am on Christmas morning do you have a legal right to immediately get access to those records and enter the property? I would presume that there has to be a reasonable expectation. Now if this was Wednesday last week, the complaint sounds much more legitimate. Or if he's been trying several days and they told him "person will be back x date" and he comes back x date, yeah. But I'd actually be pretty upset if the legal system allowed unreasonable requests. Absolutely shady stuff is going down in OpenAI and I can absolutely understand fear that things will change as they get more time, but the consequences of unreasonable requests results in far more harm than any one company can do. Unless you're ultra Xrisk and think they're going to release paperclipping AI imminently. But then break in, get the proof, sort out the law later. You get that proof and you bet you'll have a lot of free money showing up for legal defense and a very sympathetic court who is going to learn about Jury Nullification. But if it's just about taxes? Chill. But again, not a lawyer and definitely don't know any law. This just does not sound right. It just sounds so much easier to get the video of them denying and take them to court and make them prove they had no one to give him the documents.

[hunter2_]

> the journalist

FYI you're replying to the journalist.