25

ject, however, does not seem of sufficient urgency for this Commis-
sion to discuss now more fully.

It is, however, very important that the Legislature should clarify
the classification. Many corporations in Maryland exercise the
function of business corporations as intended by .the law, besides
the functions as set forth in Section 88-B, which subjects them to
assessment as share corporations. The Commission has ruled that if,
in the exercise of any of its powers, the corporation performs duties
that bring it within any of the excepted classes, that corporation is
subject to assessment as a share corporation rather than an ordinary
business corporation, but there should be no discretion in the Com-
mission in the performance of this duty. The Commission recom-
mends that this paragraph of the law be changed so that the proper
classification depends upon the principal business of a corporation.
It may be that a corporation that is for all intents and purposes
an ordinary business corporation may have conferred upon it powers
of limited extent that would make it subject for all purposes as a
share corporation; as, for example, a land company operating (in
conjunction with the development of real estate) transportation of
persons in buses or as common carriers. The Commission will be
prepared, at the proper time, to suggest to the Legislature a redraft-
ing of this section.

Under the provisions of the Ordinary Business Corporation Act
the State Tax Commission is charged with the duty of arriving at
the assessed valuation of the tangible personal property of such cor-
porations. This obliges all Maryland corporations to report an-
nually to the State Tax Commission as to their ownership of prop-
erty and creates a discrimination in favor of firms, individuals and
foreign corporations engaged in a like business, in so far as the
tangible personal property of the latter is not subject to the annual
reassessment. In the case of firms, individuals and foreign corpo-
rations, their assets are assessed by local assessing officers and the
Commission exercises only supervisory power over such assessments.
It seems that greater equality could be had by some legislation pro-
viding for an annual review of such assessments by the State Tax
Commission through the proper cooperation of local assessing bodies,
and that provision should be made for the assessment of tangible
property of foreign corporations within the State by the Commis-
sion, as referred to in another part of this report.