Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland Tax Court reports rising appeals and limits on electronic petition filing; court cites postponements and legacy systems
Summary
Analysts told the subcommittee that appeals to the Maryland Tax Court rose sharply in fiscal 2024, producing a backlog and a clearance rate below goal. The court said a statutory prohibition prevents electronic filing of the petition that starts an appeal and that many appeals are postponed by parties, contributing to slower clearance.
David Perpitt, a Department of Legislative Services analyst, presented the Maryland Tax Court’s fiscal 2026 budget request and DLS findings, saying the court’s proposed budget increases by about $15,500 (1.6%) to just under $1 million and that roughly 90% of court spending is personnel.
Why it matters: The tax court’s caseload increased sharply in fiscal 2024, and the agency said a combination of postponement requests by parties, reliance on paper processes and an antiquated case database are the primary causes of slow clearance rates. The statute currently bars electronic submission of the petition form that opens an appeal, which the court and analysts said limits options for online filing until the law is changed.
Perpitt told the subcommittee that about 1,100 appeals were filed in fiscal 2024, a roughly 50% increase from fiscal 2023, and that pending appeals at the end of FY24 rose about 53%. The court’s clearance rate was 72% for fiscal 2024, short of the court’s 90% target. DLS requested that the court comment on causes and steps to reduce the backlog.
Andrew Berg, clerk of the Maryland Tax Court, told senators the court concurs with the DLS recommendation to accept the governor’s allowance for fiscal 2026. Berg noted statutory and operational limits: the petition form that starts an appeal “is prohibited under the statute” from being submitted electronically, and the court has discussed changes with the Office of the Attorney General but has not yet secured legislative change. The court also reported that many postponements are consented to by both parties and that 346 postponements were granted in fiscal 2024.
Court officials described efforts underway and constraints. The tax court has explored procuring a new case management system and consulted private vendors and other state agencies. It has improved post‑hearing processing to speed issuance of orders that formally close appeals and is continuing to study implementation costs for a modern case management system. Berg said merits hearings—where witness credibility matters—are still typically held in person; status, pretrial and motion hearings frequently occur remotely.
On staffing and training, Berg said the court has five judges appointed by the governor to six‑year terms and that several judges are attorneys. The chief judge has sought continuing education, and the court is developing a more structured training program for judges because tax‑court judges are not part of the judiciary’s standard judicial education program.
Ending: Senators asked the court for follow‑up data on causes of the rising backlog, the number and nature of postponements, and potential legislative language to permit electronic filing of the petition form. The subcommittee did not record any votes on the tax court budget at the hearing.
