????如果加州企業(yè)主和投資者在過(guò)去的4年中出售過(guò)企業(yè)，那么等待他們的將是一封會(huì)讓他們大吃一驚的信件。加州稅務(wù)局（Franchise Tax Board）不僅取消了針對(duì)小型企業(yè)和投資者的資本收益稅收減免政策，而且還宣布，稅收政策在恢復(fù)后具有追溯效力。它意味著那些曾享受過(guò)稅收減免政策的企業(yè)家們將收到未繳稅款及其利息的賬單，而且可征稅時(shí)間將一直追溯至2008年。

????自1993年以來(lái)，銷售“合格”小型企業(yè)股票的加州企業(yè)主和早期公司投資者一直都在享受州所得稅的部分減免。這個(gè)政策對(duì)那些希望在加州創(chuàng)業(yè)、興業(yè)的人們起到了鼓勵(lì)作用。如果這些人賣掉了公司，他們只需按正常稅率的一半繳納所得稅——即4.5%而不是9%。 照片分享應(yīng)用公司Instagram和商鋪點(diǎn)評(píng)網(wǎng)Yelp（Yelp）的創(chuàng)始人都在此列。

????加州稅務(wù)局于去年12月宣布了這個(gè)決定，并于今年年初開始執(zhí)行。目前，股東不僅需要按全額稅率（已上升至約13%）為資本收益支付所得稅，而且還得補(bǔ)繳政策追溯期限內(nèi)曾免掉的50%的稅款。加州稅務(wù)局表示，這項(xiàng)政策將涉及2,500多名納稅人，并帶來(lái)約1.2億美元的稅收收入。

????果然，這個(gè)變化引發(fā)了企業(yè)家們的擔(dān)憂。

????企業(yè)家、制藥數(shù)據(jù)公司AdverseEvents聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人布萊恩?歐佛斯瑞特說(shuō)：“盡管很多人都會(huì)受到很大的影響，但他們甚至都不知道這回事。它會(huì)動(dòng)搖我們?cè)诩又堇^續(xù)發(fā)展的決心。”歐佛斯瑞特之前曾與他人聯(lián)合創(chuàng)立了Sagient Research Systems公司，他于去年出售了這一公司。他個(gè)人將不得不為這筆交易額外支付高達(dá)六位數(shù)的稅金和利息。

????具有諷刺意味的是，正是小型企業(yè)自身的所作所為導(dǎo)致了這個(gè)變化。一位名叫弗蘭克?卡特勒的橘子郡企業(yè)家因享受稅收減免政策的要求遭到拒絕而將加州稅務(wù)局告上了法庭，原因是這位企業(yè)家在加州的業(yè)務(wù)不足企業(yè)整個(gè)業(yè)務(wù)量的80%，并不滿足減免政策的要求。加州上訴法院做出了有利于卡特勒的判決，廢除了政策中的這個(gè)要求，并稱這個(gè)要求帶有歧視性。作為回應(yīng)，加州稅務(wù)局決定取消整個(gè)稅收減免政策。

????歐佛斯瑞特與多名加州企業(yè)家成立了一個(gè)名叫捍衛(wèi)加州企業(yè)（California Business Defense）的組織，以對(duì)抗加州稅務(wù)局的這一決定。他們表示，稅務(wù)局此舉的涉及面過(guò)于廣泛。在他們看來(lái)，稅務(wù)局應(yīng)取消政策中80%業(yè)務(wù)的要求，而不是取消整個(gè)減免政策。歐佛斯瑞特說(shuō)：“加州稅務(wù)局并不是只有這一種選擇。我們的立場(chǎng)是，之前也有過(guò)其他先例，但是他們并沒(méi)有照著做。稅務(wù)局的步子邁得太大了，有必要緩一緩，好讓那些頭腦比較冷靜的人掌握話語(yǔ)權(quán)。”

????Entrepreneurs and investors in California can expect to receive a rude shock in the mail if they sold their company in the last four years. Not only did the state's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) eliminate a tax break on capital gains for small business owners and investors, it announced the tax would be reinstated retroactively. This means those who benefitted from the break can expect a bill for unpaid taxes, plus interest, stretching all the way back to 2008.

????Since 1993, California entrepreneurs and early-stage investors have enjoyed a partial state income tax exclusion on sales of stock of a "qualified" small business. This was an incentive for people to start and keep businesses in California. If they sold their company, they would only have to pay half of the regular state tax rate on what they gained -- about 4.5% instead of 9%. That could include founders of companies such as Instagram and Yelp (YELP).

????The FTB announced its decision last December, and the ruling went into effect earlier this year. Now, not only will stockholders have to pay the full tax rate on capital gains, which has risen to about 13%, but they'll also be billed retroactively for 50% of the taxes they excluded. The FTB says this will affect over 2,500 people and bring in about $120 million in revenue.

????Not surprisingly, the changes have led to concern among entrepreneurs.

????"A lot of people who are going to be very affected don't even know about it," says Brian Overstreet, entrepreneur and co-founder of AdverseEvents, a pharmaceutical data firm. "This is going to affect our decision to keep jobs and businesses in California." Overstreet had previously co-founded Sagient Research Systems, a company he sold last year. As a result of the transaction he says he will personally have to pay an additional six-figure amount in taxes and interest.

????Ironically, it was the actions of a small business owner that led to the change. An Orange County businessman named Frank Cutler sued the FTB after being denied the tax break because less than 80% of his business was based in California, one of the incentive's caveats. The California Court of Appeals sided with Cutler and struck down the provision, saying it was discriminatory. In response, the Franchise Tax Board decided to eliminate the incentive entirely.

????Overstreet and a group of California entrepreneurs have formed a group dubbed California Business Defense to fight the ruling, saying the FTB's actions were too broad. They argue it could have struck down the 80% rule instead of the entire tax break. "The FTB had more than one choice to make here, and our position is that there were other precedents available, which they did not follow," says Overstreet. "The wheels are going too fast, the process needs to slow down so that cooler heads can prevail."