Government-Backed AI? OpenAI Reportedly in Talks Over US Equity Stake


ChatGPT-maker OpenAI is in “early conversations” with the Trump administration about giving the government a 5% ownership stake in the company, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing two anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter.

CEO Sam Altman’s proposal reportedly calls for OpenAI to allocate 5% of its equity to a US sovereign wealth fund, a type of state-controlled investment. With OpenAI’s current $852 billion valuation, 5% of that would price out at a $42 billion purchase for the US government. 

Under Altman’s plan, other AI giants like Google, Meta and Anthropic would do the same, but it’s unclear if they would be interested. OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

There’s no guarantee the government will make such a deal. But if the plan goes forward, it would give OpenAI a much-desired financial and reputational boost amid growing criticism of AI. 

The move could also let OpenAI ease political and regulatory pressure as the company faces tighter government oversight and constraints on model rollouts while preparing to go public. The AI company, alongside rival Anthropic, has been gradually taking steps to make an initial public offering, allowing anyone to buy shares. 

While Altman could be trying to smooth his relationship with Washington and keep the company’s IPO plans on track, the deal could also artificially inflate the value of AI companies in the eyes of Wall Street — or put taxpayers on the hook for a bailout if the AI boom turns into a bust.

What is a public wealth fund?

A theoretical AI sovereign wealth fund would give the government some “skin in the game,” so to speak, and return some of the “upsides” of the AI boom to the government, which, according to OpenAI, it could share with all of us. 

Take the Alaska Permanent Fund, for example. The Alaskan state government takes up to 25% of the money it earns from the oil and mineral industries (drilling, leasing rights, etc.) and invests it in the stock market. Then, every year, the state cuts a check for full-time Alaskan residents from the fund’s investment returns.

AI Atlas

Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a public wealth fund proposal in new legislation that would have the US take a 50% stake, writing in The New York Times: “Since AI is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity.”

Right now, AI companies haven’t turned a profit — they’ve spent way more in data center infrastructure and compute than they’ve made through subscriptions. The pitch is that if AI becomes profitable in the future, financial success should be shared with everyone, not just tech CEOs.

An AI public wealth fund, OpenAI said in an April policy paper, could have returns “distributed directly to citizens” and be managed to ensure AI doesn’t exacerbate economic inequality. 

What’s the calculus for the AI industry? 

The push for a government stake could endear Altman and the company to administration officials, who have increasingly demanded more control over the AI industry in recent months. Citing national security concerns, President Trump recently ordered a new government review process for new, frontier AI models before they’re released. 

Some critics read the move as an effort to put the government on the hook before the AI industry goes south, effectively creating a kind of pre-bailout cushion.

Watch this: Prepare to Live With Two Siris (Unless You Pay Up)

If enacted, a government stake in OpenAI “materially changes the investor calculus” of an IPO, said Indranil Bandyopadhyay, Forrester principal analyst. “Some institutional investors will view this as a de-risking signal; others will price it as a governance overhang.”

A potential 5% stake will also be expensive and require congressional approval, making a deal less likely. Ed Zitron, writer of the Where’s Your Ed At newsletter and the Better Offline podcast, told CNET that z $42 billion price tag, while US households are facing record costs of living, could make that move “incredibly unpopular.”

“OpenAI is desperate and has been throwing out ideas of a sovereign wealth fund and government investments for over a year,” Zitron says. “This is just another sign that the company has no idea what to do other than beg people for money.”





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


The IRS’s historical abuses led Congress to create specific taxpayer rights, including rights stemming from collection due process (“CDP”) hearings. These administrative hearings are intended to pause IRS collection actions while the IRS Office of Appeals considers whether the collection is both lawful and warranted.

One might assume these rights extend to any liability assessed by the IRS. Since the IRS is part of the U.S. Treasury, it would seem logical that these rights would apply to any liability owed to the Treasury, especially when the Treasury delegates assessment authority for the liability from one of its sub-departments to the IRS, which is another one of its sub-departments.

The fact that a liability originated with another sub-department shouldn’t matter if that original sub-department never handles the liability because it has been fully delegated to the IRS, the other sub-department. However, as the Jenner v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. No. 7, case demonstrates, this assumption is incorrect. The case involves Foreign Bank Account Reporting (“FBAR”) penalties assessed by the IRS.

Facts & Procedural History

This case involves a couple who were assessed FBAR penalties for tax years 2005 through 2009. The penalties relate to foreign bank accounts that were not reported to the Treasury Department.

When the couple did not pay the penalties, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“BFS”) informed the couple that funds would be withheld from their monthly Social Security benefits through the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”) to pay these penalties.

In response, the couple submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, with the IRS. The IRS issued a letter to the couple saying that FBAR penalties are not taxes and therefore not subject to CDP requirements.

The taxpayers filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court under the CDP hearing procedures, which was the subject of the court opinion described in this article.

About FBAR Penalties

FBAR penalties can be imposed on U.S. persons who fail to report certain foreign financial accounts to the government. The reporting requirement generally applies if the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year.

This reporting is done on FinCEN Form 114 (formerly TD F 90-22.1). The form is due on April 15th and there is an automatic extension to October 15th.

The amount of the penalties can be severe. Non-willful violations can result in penalties of $10,000 per violation. Willful FBAR violations can result in penalties of the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the account balance at the time of the violation. Criminal penalties can also apply in some situations. Notably, for purposes of this article, these penalties are assessed under Title 31 of the U.S. Code (which is the Bank Secrecy Act) and not under the Internal Revenue Code (which is Title 26 of the U.S. Code).

Assessment of FBAR Penalties

While FBAR penalties are not tax penalties, the IRS has been delegated the authority to assess FBAR penalties through a chain of delegation.

The Secretary of Treasury first delegated authority to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). FinCEN is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury that works to detect and prosecute financial crimes and money laundering. FinCEN then redelegated this authority to the IRS for FBAR penalties.

The typical assessment process begins when an IRS agent conducts an audit and proposes penalties. The IRS then issues Letter 3709 proposing the penalties, and account holders have 30 days to either pay the penalty, request an appeals conference, or provide additional information.

The taxpayer may also trigger an assessment by voluntarily submitting FBAR forms after the due date. The IRS will review the late filing and determine whether to impose penalties. When FBARs are filed through FinCEN’s BSA E-Filing System, the IRS receives this information through an information-sharing agreement with FinCEN. The IRS can then review these late filings as part of its normal examination process.

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review, the IRS Office of Appeals has the ability to consider the proposed FBAR penalties, including whether the violations occurred, whether they were willful or non-willful, whether reasonable cause exists, and whether the penalty amounts are appropriate. Appeals officers can sustain, reduce, or eliminate the proposed penalties based on their review of the facts and circumstances.

They can also consider hazards of litigation, meaning they can take into account the IRS’s likelihood of success if the case were to proceed to court. This review is particularly important for willful FBAR penalties, where the government must prove willfulness by clear and convincing evidence in any subsequent litigation. Appeals officers may also consider the ability to pay and can help facilitate alternative payment arrangements if the penalties are sustained.

Remedies After Missing or Unsuccessful Appeal

If account holders miss the appeals deadline or receive an unfavorable appeals decision, there are still several options that may provide remedies.

For example, the account holder can challenge the administrative offset through Treasury procedures. When the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service initiates an offset (such as withholding Social Security benefits), they must provide notice to the account holder. The account holder then has certain due process rights under Title 31, including the right to inspect records, request a review of the debt, and establish a payment schedule. They can also present evidence that the offset would create a financial hardship or that the debt is not valid or legally enforceable.

Account holders can also wait for the government to file suit to collect the penalties and raise their defenses in the collection suit. They do not have to pay the penalty and file a refund claim first with this option. This is different from tax assessments, where taxpayers typically must “pay first, litigate later.” When the government files suit to collect FBAR penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(2), the account holder can raise defenses such as reasonable cause, lack of willfulness, statute of limitations, or constitutional challenges. The government bears the burden of proving its case, including proving willfulness by clear and convincing evidence for willful FBAR penalties.

Collection Due Process Not Allowed

Notably absent from the discussion above are the IRS collection programs and procedures. That is the issue in this Jenner court case.

In Jenner, the tax court answers the question as to whether the traditional CDP hearings and rights are available for FBAR penalties. As noted by the court, FBAR penalties are not “taxes” under the Internal Revenue Code and CDP rights only apply to collection of “taxes.”

The court emphasized that the IRS’s authority to assess FBAR penalties does not convert them into tax liabilities. Instead, Title 31 provides its own separate procedures for assessment and collection. The collection mechanism for FBAR penalties is through civil action or administrative offset, not through IRS liens and levies that would give rise to CDP rights.

Thus, while the IRS may assess these penalties, they remain non-tax debts subject to Title 31’s collection procedures rather than the Internal Revenue Code’s collection provisions. The CDP hearing is not a viable option for contesting the assessment or underlying liability for FBAR penalties.

The Takeaway

Unless Congress changes the law, account holders who are assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS do not have fundamental rights, such as CDP rights, that are afforded to taxpayers for tax balances. This is the case even though the same agency whose abuses gave rise to the CDP hearing and CDP rights for taxpayers, the IRS, is involved in assessing FBAR penalties. The remedies outside of the IRS are there, even though they do not afford taxpayers the rights and remedies available for taxes. Account holders have to contend with this when assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS and do not agree with the assessments.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link