Published on:

By

As tax defense attorneys and former IRS prosecutors, we are very experienced in resolving Maryland and federal tax problems. One of the common issues we encounter involve the failure to pay Maryland sales and use tax.

I. Applicable Statutes and Case-Law
Section 11-102(a) of the Tax-General Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, imposes a sales and use tax on a retail sale in Maryland, or a use of tangible personal property or a taxable service in Maryland, unless otherwise provided. See MD. CODE ANN., TAX-GEN. § 11-102(a)(1)-(2). Section 11-601 of the Tax-General Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, provides for the payment of sale and use tax to the Comptroller of Maryland by buyers or vendors. See MD. CODE ANN., TAX-GEN., § 11-601(b)-(c) (West 2010).

If a vendor that is liable for the payment of sales and use tax, including interest and penalties, is a limited liability company (hereinafter, “LLC”), then personal liability for the same extends to all members of the LLC if there is no operating agreement, or to those individual who manage the business and affairs of the LLC if there is an operating agreement. Id. at § 11-601(d)(2). Under Tax-Gen. § 11-601(e), a member of an LLC is not considered to be managing the business and affairs of the company solely by doing one or more of the following: (a) consulting with or advising the individuals who manage the business and affairs of the company; (b) directing the management of the company in the same manner as a director of a corporation directs the management of a corporation; or (c) voting on any matter required to be voted on by the members of the company. See id. at § 11-601(e).
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

As a lawyer who has successfully defended many types of insider trading allegations by both the SEC and CFTC, I am often asked to explain what type of insider trading is prohibited by the CFTC within the commodities and futures markets?

I. General Overview and Background of CFTC
Generally, regulation of the U.S. financial markets is divided between the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), with authority over securities, and the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), with authority over futures/derivatives. See Gary Rubin, CFTC Regulation 1.59 Fails to Adequately Regulate Insider Trading, Note, 53 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 599, 606 (2008-09). The Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) of 1936 was the first major congressional initiative aimed at regulating derivatives. See Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, ch. 545, 49 Stat. 1491 (1936) (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 1 (2006)); see also id. at 604. Generally, the CEA expanded upon prior acts by increasing the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority and making it “unlawful to engage in commodity brokering without first registering with the secretary.” Rubin, supra, 53 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. at 605 (citing CEA § 5, 49 Stat. at 1492-97).

The CFTC was established by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act (“CFTCA”) of 1974, which granted the CFTC the exclusive authority to regulate futures contracts. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(2). The CFTC is a federal regulatory body that regulates the entire commodities futures industry. In its mission statement, the CFTC describes its main purposes as preventing fraud and promoting competition, stating, “[t]he CFTC’s mission is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices related to the sale of commodity and financial futures and options, and to foster open, competitive, and financially sound futures and option markets.” CFTC, About the CFTC, http://www.cftc.gov/About/MissionResponsibilities/index.htm.

Prior to the enactment of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act” or “the Act”), the CFTC was viewed as “a regulatory agency with a small bark and even less bite.” Peter J. Henning, C.F.T.C. Is Set to Get Tougher on Fraud, New York Times, Dealbook, available at http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/c-f-t-c-is-set-to-get-tougher-on-fraud/. However, with the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has gained new authority to regulate derivatives, credit default swaps and the exchanges that will trade these contracts.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Generally speaking, a Maryland corporation provides protection to individuals from personal liability associated with debts of the corporate entity. When a plaintiff or creditor is able to go after an owner’s personal assets, it is commonly called “piercing the corporate veil”.

Maryland law is crystalline that the corporate entity will be disregarded only when necessary to prevent fraud or to enforce a paramount equity. The mere fact that all or almost all of the corporate stock is owned by one individual or a few individuals will not afford sufficient grounds for disregarding corporateness Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Simply put, an insurance agent has no general duty to advise its insureds, with regard to essentially anything after the issuance of the policy. In Maryland, as well as other jurisdictions, the basis for not holding agents to a standard of care stems from a fear that to do so would create a situation where the tort floodgates would open to allow claims against brokers whenever an incident surrounding the policy occurs. While the question of duty can become more complex when the agent is acting on behalf of the insured, as opposed to the insurance company, the question is not affected in a relevant way.

Regardless of the status of the agent, when viewed exclusively in the insurance context, once the policy is issued, the insured is responsible for noticing any problems with the policy and bringing them to the attention of the agent immediately. With regard to administration of the policy following issuance, the basis for not requiring a duty of care stems from a belief that such would require an agent to continuously monitor a clients assets and adjust coverage accordingly. Since agents are generally in a position where they must rely on the information given to them by the insured, imposing a duty of care is unreasonable.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On of the most common dispute between businesses involves a tort know as tortious Interference of contract. Maryland recognizes two types of tortious interference claims: “inducing the breach of an existing contract and, more broadly, maliciously or wrongfully interfering with economic relationships in the absence of a breach of contract.” Kaser v. Fin. Prot. Mktg., Inc., 376 Md. 621, 628 (2003).

The two claims share the same elements – intentional acts done with the unlawful or wrongful purpose to cause damage to plaintiff’s lawful business with actual damage resulting – and can arise only out of the relationship between three parties, the two parties to the contract and a separate interferer. The three-party relationship applies equally in the instance of a business relationship where no express contract exists; however, in such situations, the right of an individual to interfere is treated more broadly.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

To the surprise of many commercial litigators, Maryland does not recognize an independent breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Court of Special Appeals recently stated “In a claim for monetary damages at law … an alleged breach of fiduciary duty may give rise to a cause of action, but it does not, standing alone, constitute a cause of action.” Wasserman v. Kay, 197 Md. App. 586, 631 (2011).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Many businesses approach classifying workers as a tax strategy: classify someone who performs services for you as an employee, and the employer must withhold federal income taxes, withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. Classify that same worker as an independent contractor, and the worker, not the business, is responsible for the related employment taxes. Seem like an easy decision? Think again. A mere label does not determine the employer-employee relationship for tax purposes, and misclassification can result in potentially crippling tax liabilities.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information
Maryland Offices:
Downtown Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office: (410) 385-2225 Toll Free: (800) 385-2243 Fax: (410) 547-2432 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Baltimore County Office
1 W Pennsylvania Ave #905
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 494-7100 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Washington, D.C. Office
By Appointment Only
1775 I St NW #1150
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 921-2225 Phone: (202) 539-2444
New York Office
By Appointment Only
40 Exchange Pl #1800
New York, NY 10005
Toll Free: (800) 385-2243
Annapolis Office
By Appointment Only
191 Main St #205
Annapolis, MD 21401
Office: (410) 385-2225
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Silverman | Thompson | Slutkin | White LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design