The Maryland Chamber opposes this bill because it would add duplicative new layers of penalties for offenses that are already illegal under existing state and federal law. Existing state law provides for the collection of triple damages for persons attempting to defraud the state, with felony sanctions and imprisonment for egregious cases. These state laws are supplemented by the federal False Claims Act that already provides an avenue for individuals to file suit on behalf of the federal government for alleged false health claims and receive a share of the recovers.

The Maryland Chamber believes that duplicating the federal law at the state level will increase the number of lawsuits without assuring any increase in fraud recoveries. By increasing lawsuits against health care providers, it would drive up health care costs for employers and further limit access to health care in Maryland.

“It’s the state’s job to enforce state law,” Maryland Chamber Vice President of Government Affairs Ron Wineholt said. “We support vigorous enforcement of existing law, but we do not endorse the creation of a new private cause of action at the state level for individuals to pursue these claims.”

Key committees of the Maryland General Assembly are considering legislation that would impose a system of mandatory unitary combined reporting for corporate income taxes in Maryland.

Corporations doing business in Maryland are currently taxed based on their payroll, property and sales in Maryland. Combined reporting arbitrarily assigns income to Maryland for all members of a corporate unitary group – even for those corporate entities having no presence in the state.

The Maryland Chamber has opposed combined reporting legislation for a number of years. States that have adopted combined reporting have found that it results in massive shifts of tax liability between businesses, with many paying more taxes and many paying less. We believe it’s important to analyze the winners and losers of such a tax change and the impact on Maryland’s economy.

The Maryland Business Tax Reform Commission was created by the Governor and General Assembly during the 2007 special session to examine how businesses are taxed in the state. The commission is studying a variety of issues including combined reporting, apportionment, tax credits, tax exemptions and more. The Maryland Chamber is represented on the commission by our State Taxation Consultant Karen Syrylo, CPA. The group is scheduled to provide its recommendations to the General Assembly in December 2010.

During recent public hearings, Maryland Chamber Vice President of Government Affairs Ron Wineholt urged lawmakers to allow the Maryland Business Tax Reform Commission to complete its work before considering legislation to change the state’s approach to corporate taxation.

“The Commission should be allowed to evaluate another year of tax data and report back this December without having this issue prejudged by the General Assembly,” Wineholt said.

This is a priority issue for the Maryland Chamber. You can learn more the bills and access the Chamber’s position statements online here. For more information, contact Ron Wineholt at rwineholt@mdchamber.org.

“Many small businesses are experiencing difficult cash flow problems as sales decrease and customers disappear. Allowing small business owners to pay their property taxes in two installments, just like homeowners, could be a significant help to some businesses.”

Since 1995, homeowners have had the option to pay their real property taxes in two installments - one half by September 30 and one-half by December 31. The General assembly provided this payment plan option to homeowners recognizing that some property owners had difficulty paying their taxes in one lump sum. More than 30 states allow all real property owners to pay their property taxes in installments. In these tough economic times, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce believes extending the semiannual payment option to small businesses would make a lot of sense.

The bill, HB 484, would allow owners of commercial real property with an annual property tax bill of less than $50,000 to pay their property tax in semiannual payments. Last year, the bill died without a vote in the Ways & Means Committee. This year, it’s back, with broad bipartisan support and 20 additional sponsors.

We’d like to know what you think about it. Would this option be helpful for your business? Give us your feedback by completing the poll below or contacting Ron Wineholt at rwineholt@mdchamber.org. 

“The Maryland Chamber thanks Chairman Mac Middleton and the entire Finance Committee for all their hard work,” Maryland Chamber President/CEO Kathy Snyder, CCE said. “We also thank our Unemployment Insurance Subcommittee Chairman Ron Adler and our Vice President of Government Affairs Allyson Black for working hard to get our concerns addressed.”

The Maryland Chamber supports the bill, which was amended to address a number of our concerns. The legislation will now be considered by the full Senate.

The Daily Record reported yesterday that House Economic Matters Committee Chairman Derek Davis said that he would move the Senate version of the bill, which he thinks is a good compromise.

For more information on this issue, visit our unemployment insurance issue page, or contact Allyson Black at ablack@mdchamber.org.

The bill, HB 755, would require the Comptroller to annually publish the maximum income eligibility for the state’s earned income credit and a notice to employees regarding the federal and state credits. Employers would be required to identify employees who may be eligible for the credit and provide them with a copy of the comptroller’s notice.

The Maryland Chamber opposes the bill because it is the responsibility of the state, not employers, to identify individuals potentially eligible for the earned income credit.

In order for an employer to know if an employee may be eligible for the credit, the employer would need to know information about information about qualifying factors, including:

• Adjusted gross income for the family.


• The employee’s income tax filing status.


• The number of the employee’s “qualified” children.

“An employer attempting to comply with this bill would have to make a choice,” Wineholt said. “Do they provide copies of the notice to every employee in the company, or do they identify and notify only those employees below certain wage levels who may qualify for the credit? Either option is a bad choice for the employer due to the time, costs and privacy issues involved.”

For more information, access the Chamber’s complete position statement here (pdf) or contact Ron Wineholt at rwineholt@mdchamber.org.

There have been several bills introduced this session to address the concerns. Stakeholders continue working to develop a compromise to deal with redevelopment projects and to grandfather projects in the pipeline seeking final approval.

Here is a video update from Katie Maloney of the Maryland State Builders Association, who Co-Chairs the Maryland Chamber’s Environment Committee:

For more information contact Allyson Black at ablack@mdchamber.org.

Similar legislation was introduced last year. The Maryland Chamber opposed the bill, arguing that a one-size-fits-all shift breaks mandate could have unintended consequences, particularly as it relates to emergency situations and flexible work arrangements.

If this is an issue that concerns your business, let us know. Contact Allyson Black at ablack@mdchamber.org.

Baltimore Sun: Chamber gets behind changes to unemployment benefits

Baltimore Sun: Hancock: Believe it or not, business supports a tax increase

Baltimore Sun: Editorial - Mutual benefits

Baltimore Business Journal: Md. Chamber, legislature end stalemate over jobless insurance

The Daily Record: Fragile compromise’ on unemployment bill

The Gazette: Chamber OK gives boost to jobless fund deal

Washington Examiner: Md. businesses back O’Malley’s revamped unemployment plan

MarylandReporter.com: Finally a Deal on Unemployment Reform

• Adopting an Alternative Base Period, adjusting how the state determines a claimant’s monetary eligibility and employer charges.


• Providing 26 additional weeks of UI benefits to people enrolled in job training.


• Making adjustments to the existing law allowing benefits for part-time workers.

The amended bill includes $18.2 million to $19.5 million in annual reductions to offset the cost of the benefit increases needed to make the state eligible for the federal stimulus funds. Offsets include:

• Elimination of sick claims.


• Increasing the minimum weekly benefit.


• Increasing penalties for misconduct and gross misconduct.


• Decreasing disregarded wages.

The amended bill also keeps the tax tables at table F, rather than moving to table E. This will help the state build up the unemployment insurance trust fund faster. The original bill used much of the federal stimulus funds to provide employers with a small one-year rate deferral. While deferring a small portion of the unemployment insurance tax increase may sound appealing, the Chamber believes it would weaken the unemployment insurance system and ensure that Maryland employers pay higher rates for a longer period of time. By dedicating the federal funds to the trust fund, and remaining at Table F, the amended bill takes the first step towards rebuilding the trust fund and reducing unemployment insurance tax rates for all Maryland employers.

The Maryland Chamber testified in opposition to legislation (SB 312) that would prohibit an employer from using an applicant’s credit report or credit history when making hiring decisions at a Senate Finance Committee hearing last week.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Procedures, Federal Bankruptcy Act, as well as other Federal and Maryland laws already protect applicants and employees and regulate this issue.

Additionally, the legislation limits flexibility needed by employers to use a variety of factors to determine the best candidate for a position, particularly positions that require an employee to handle cash or financial information.

For more information about SB312/HB175, contact Allyson Black at ablack@mdchamber.org.