Zuckerberg proposes a new stock structure aimed at California’s billionaire tax, seeking to preserve control of Meta

Meta’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, is reportedly looking to adapt to the possibility of California adopting a so-called “billionaire tax” by using a newly launched class of stock that is meant to raise money without forcing him to give up control of Meta. The approach, described by Yahoo Finance, centers on a specific share class offered in a way that is intended to be workable for Zuckerberg if the measure becomes law.

According to the Yahoo Finance report published Oct. 22, the share class was “partially engineered” to help Zuckerberg pay the expected tax burden that would apply under the proposed legislation. In the same reporting, the plan is framed as an alternative to selling existing holdings in a way that could change his stake economics and potentially complicate governance outcomes at Meta, which is structured with multiple share classes and voting rights.

The report positions the stock plan as a bridge between tax payment needs and the founder’s continuing influence over the company. While the specifics of how the new class is priced, what voting rights it carries, and what exact mechanism would be used to convert or sell shares are not detailed in the information provided here, the central idea is that a tailored securities structure could be used to generate cash for taxes while limiting disruptive ownership changes.

California’s proposed billionaire tax has been discussed as a levy on wealth above a high threshold, which would create tax obligations even for investors who are not realizing gains through traditional sales. That “wealth tax” design is one reason companies and high-net-worth executives often focus on liquidity planning, since paying taxes could require raising cash that is not otherwise available from ongoing business operations or dividends. In that context, a dedicated share class can be presented as a tool for liquidity rather than a general strategy to change long-term ownership.

For Meta, the stakes are not only personal for Zuckerberg but also corporate, because any large-scale selling by a controlling shareholder can affect market sentiment, create volatility around governance expectations, and raise questions among investors about whether a founder’s priorities are shifting. Even if the tax bill never passes, the report suggests that Meta is positioning optionality by arranging financial structures in advance rather than responding reactively if the legislative outcome changes.

More broadly, the episode underscores how proposed tax policy can reach into capital markets engineering. When a wealth-based tax is under consideration, the practical question becomes how to fund tax payments from assets that may not be easily converted without affecting ownership and control. The Yahoo Finance description implies that Meta and Zuckerberg are considering securities design as a solution, rather than relying solely on cash sales or borrowing.