Meta agrees to help Zuckerberg pay billionaire tax if passed in California
TAXES

Meta agrees to help Zuckerberg pay billionaire tax if passed in California

Oct 26, 2026Updated 8:08am ET

Meta disclosed a deal to create new non-voting shares that would let CEO Mark Zuckerberg sell stock to raise cash for California’s proposed one-time 5% “billionaire tax” (Proposition 40) while keeping voting control and committing to stay a California resident for eight years.

Meta disclosed a deal to create new non-voting shares that would let CEO Mark Zuckerberg sell stock to raise cash for California’s proposed one-time 5% “billionaire tax” (Proposition 40) while keeping voting control and committing to stay a California resident for eight years.

Corroboration

LowMedHigh
ApnewsThe Washington PostThe GuardianABC 15ABC News MediaAl Jazeera

Confirmed by 36+ sources.

What This is

  • California voters will decide Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on residents with net worth over $1 billion.
  • Meta’s board approved creating a new non-voting Class C share structure so Zuckerberg can sell shares for cash without losing voting control.
  • The company framed the plan as a way to help him pay any tax bill without selling the voting shares that give him control of Meta.
  • Zuckerberg agreed to remain a California resident (or where Meta is headquartered) for eight years, with limited exceptions, while serving as a full-time leader.
  • Some coverage notes the tax would be tied to a specific residency date, which could limit whether moving out of state would avoid the levy.
  • Backers say the tax would help pay for state health care and other programs, while a well-funded opposition campaign argues it will hurt revenues by pushing wealthy people to leave.

Why This Matters

  • It highlights how hard it is for states to tax extreme wealth when people can change residency.
  • It raises a fairness question: should one person’s tax planning shape a company’s stock structure and control?
  • It shows how billionaire wealth taxes can trigger aggressive financial planning even before any vote.
  • It tests whether large, one-time wealth taxes can deliver stable funding when estimates vary and opponents can spend heavily to defeat them.

Who else would want to know this?