Brin and Page shift assets amid California tax proposal

Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page appear to be reducing their presence in California, the state where they originally co-founded Google. According to The New York Times, both billionaires have recently begun moving or terminating dozens of limited liability companies—a business structure commonly used to manage private assets and investments. While both co-founders still own homes in California, they appear to be reducing their presence in the state.

In December, 15 limited liability companies overseeing Brin’s investments and interests were either terminated or converted into Nevada entities. Among the specific assets managed by these restructured LLCs are one of Brin’s superyachts, as well as his interest in a private terminal located at the San Jose International Airport.

Page has executed similar maneuvers with his own investment vehicles. A total of 45 LLCs associated with Page have recently become inactive or moved out of California. In addition to these corporate shifts, The New York Times reported that a trust associated with Page purchased a $71.9 million mansion in Miami.

According to The New York Times, relocating is not a simple, black-and-white matter for the ultra-rich, and both Brin and Page still own homes in California. Still, these moves suggest that the co-founders appear to be reducing their presence in the state.

These shifts suggest that both Brin and Page are hoping to dodge a prospective California ballot measure—a proposed piece of legislation put to a public vote. If the measure makes it onto the ballot in November and actually passes, it would impose a 5% tax on individuals with a net worth exceeding $1 billion. The proposed tax would apply retroactively to anyone who lived in California as of January 1 of this year.

Why it matters

The corporate restructuring suggests that Brin and Page are attempting to avoid a potential California ballot measure that would impose a 5% tax on individuals with a net worth exceeding $1 billion. Their actions underscore the challenges high-tax jurisdictions face when attempting to levy retroactive taxes on highly mobile billionaires.