HB1428, titled the "End Hedge Fund Control of Maryland Homes Act of 2025," would create a new tax and regulatory framework aimed at limiting large-scale ownership of single-family homes by certain investment entities. The bill imposes a 50% excise tax on the acquisition of a single-family residence by an "applicable taxpayer"—generally an entity that pools investor funds and acts as a fiduciary, such as a hedge fund—when it acquires a majority interest in a home. It also phases down the number of single-family residences these entities may own over time, with a stricter cap for hedge fund taxpayers, and imposes an additional excise tax if they exceed the permitted ownership threshold.
The bill further requires applicable taxpayers to file annual returns, reports, certifications, and records with the Comptroller, and it authorizes penalties for failure to file or for filing false returns. It also restricts the first 30 days of a listed sale of improved single-family residential property so that the seller may accept offers only from individuals, community development organizations, nonprofits, or smaller real estate enterprises that own less than 3% of residential property in the county. In addition, the bill raises the State transfer tax to 15% for certain sales of improved single-family residential property to large real estate enterprises or their subsidiaries that own substantial residential holdings in Maryland.
The bill would amend multiple parts of Maryland law, including the Housing and Community Development Article, the Real Property Article, the Tax-General Article, the Tax-Property Article, and tax administration and enforcement provisions. It creates a new special, nonlapsing Down Payment and Settlement Expense Loan Program Fund, financed by revenue from the new excise tax after administrative costs, to support down payment assistance for eligible homebuyers. It also expands the Comptroller’s authority over assessment review, tax information, and enforcement for the new tax.
Overall sentiment in the available materials appears supportive of the bill’s stated goal of curbing institutional and hedge-fund ownership of homes and redirecting revenue toward homeownership assistance. The bill’s framing suggests a policy response to housing affordability concerns and competition from large investors in the residential market. No committee transcript or recorded vote details were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or opposition in the supplied context.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s breadth and economic effects: the high 50% acquisition tax, the 15% transfer tax for large real estate enterprises, and the restrictions on who may buy during the initial listing period. Potential critics may argue that the definitions of "applicable taxpayer," "hedge fund taxpayer," and "real estate enterprise" could be difficult to administer or may capture entities beyond traditional hedge funds, while supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s anti-speculation and homebuyer-assistance objectives.
HB1428 would substantially alter Maryland tax and real property law by creating a new excise tax on certain entity ownership of single-family residences, adding reporting and penalty provisions, and increasing the transfer tax for sales to large real estate enterprises. It also establishes a dedicated fund for down payment and settlement assistance, redirecting net revenue from the new tax to homebuyer support. The bill would affect institutional investors, hedge funds, real estate investment trusts, certain LLCs and partnerships, sellers of residential property, and the Comptroller’s tax administration responsibilities.
The bill appears to have a generally favorable policy orientation in the text, with its stated purpose focused on limiting hedge fund and large investor control of Maryland homes and using the proceeds to help homebuyers. Because no committee transcripts or vote tallies were provided, the record here does not show detailed debate or formal opposition. Based on the bill’s structure and title, the likely sentiment among sponsors and supporters is strongly pro-homeownership and anti-speculation.
Likely points of contention include whether a 50% acquisition tax is too aggressive, whether the ownership caps and phased reductions are workable, and whether the bill could discourage legitimate real estate investment or housing supply. The 15% transfer tax on sales to large real estate enterprises may also be controversial because of its size and because it depends on ownership thresholds and enterprise definitions that may be complex to apply. Another likely issue is the 30-day buyer restriction, which could be viewed as favoring individual and nonprofit buyers over other market participants.