A Strategic Assessment of the Maryland Research and Development Tax Credit: Addressing the Intangible Asset Barrier for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

1. Executive Summary

The state of Maryland has long cultivated a reputation as a preeminent hub for global innovation, leveraging its unique geographic proximity to federal research laboratories, Tier-1 academic institutions, and a highly specialized workforce. Central to this economic identity is the Maryland Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, established under Tax-General Article § 10-721 to incentivize the private sector to anchor high-stakes, high-growth activities within the state’s borders.¹ However, as the global economy transitions further into a knowledge-based paradigm, a structural flaw in the statutory definition of “small business” has emerged. Specifically, the mandate that the “net book value assets” calculation include intangible assets—without the deduction of liabilities—inadvertently penalizes the state’s most promising software, biotechnology, and cybersecurity firms.³

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of this “Innovation Paradox,” assesses its impact on state competitiveness, and proposes legislative solutions to ensure that Maryland remains a viable home for the industries of the future.

2. The Evolution and Mechanics of the Maryland R&D Tax Credit Framework

The legislative journey of the Maryland R&D tax credit provides essential context for the current challenges facing small businesses. Enacted in 2000, the program originally operated with a dual-credit structure: a Basic Credit and a Growth Credit.⁵ The Basic Credit offered a 3% incentive for R&D expenses up to a company’s four-year historical average (the base amount), while the Growth Credit offered 10% for expenses exceeding that baseline.⁶ While this structure rewarded both baseline activity and incremental growth, it became increasingly complex to administer and was frequently oversubscribed, leading to deep proration that diluted the credit’s effective value.⁵

In 2021, the Maryland General Assembly enacted significant reforms via SB 196, which simplified the program by repealing the Basic Credit and consolidating resources into an expanded Growth Credit.⁶ Under the current framework, businesses can claim a 10% credit on Maryland-qualified research expenses (QREs) that exceed a historically derived Maryland Base Amount.⁹ To qualify, the underlying research must be conducted within the physical boundaries of Maryland and meet the rigorous federal “Four-Part Test” defined in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41(d).⁷

Table 1: Statutory Framework of the Maryland R&D Credit

Source: 2

The most critical feature for early-stage innovation is the $3.5 million set-aside reserved for certified small businesses.⁴ For these entities, the credit is fully refundable to the extent it exceeds their state income tax liability.² This mechanism converts the tax credit into immediate, non-dilutive working capital, which is indispensable for biotechnology and software firms that may spend years in a pre-revenue state while developing proprietary technology.⁴

3. Identifying the Policy Issue: The Intangible Asset Disqualification

Despite the intent to support small firms, the statutory definition of “small business” creates a significant barrier. Under § 10-721(a)(8), a small business is defined as a for-profit entity with “net book value assets” totaling less than $5 million at either the beginning or the end of the taxable year.³ The calculation of this threshold is governed by § 10-721(a)(7), which defines “net book value assets” as the total of a business’s net value of assets, including intangibles but not including liabilities, minus depreciation and amortization.³

The Accounting Mismatch for High-Tech SMBs

For traditional manufacturing or service-based firms, this asset test is generally straightforward. However, for technology and life science companies, the inclusion of intangibles creates a “Success Penalty.” Intangible assets—such as patents, trademarks, proprietary software, and trade secrets—are the primary product of R&D efforts.¹³ Under standard accounting practices, and increasingly due to federal tax changes, companies are required to capitalize these development costs.¹⁴

As a software startup successfully builds its platform, the cumulative “book value” of that software (representing the capitalized labor costs of its engineers) rises on the balance sheet. If a company raises venture capital and spends $6 million on R&D to develop a breakthrough cybersecurity algorithm, that algorithm appears as a $6 million intangible asset. Under the Maryland statute, this company is immediately reclassified as a “large business” for the purposes of the R&D credit, even if it has zero revenue and millions of dollars in debt, because liabilities cannot be deducted from the asset total.³

This creates a systemic disadvantage for IP-heavy sectors compared to asset-light sectors. A consulting firm with $4 million in revenue might have virtually no intangible assets and qualify for the $3.5 million refundable pool, while a pre-revenue biotech firm with $5.1 million in capitalized research costs is pushed into the $8.5 million non-refundable pool, where its credits are stranded and useless in the absence of tax liability.⁴

The Impact of Federal Decoupling and Mandatory Capitalization

The pressure on the $5 million threshold has intensified due to recent changes in federal and state tax laws. Historically, IRC § 174 allowed businesses to deduct R&D expenses in the year they were incurred.¹⁴ However, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) required domestic R&D costs to be capitalized and amortized over five years.¹⁴

While the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) Act of 2025 restored full expensing for domestic R&E expenditures at the federal level, the Maryland Comptroller issued a Tax Alert clarifying that Maryland has automatically decoupled from this provision.¹⁴ Consequently, for Maryland income tax purposes, domestic research expenditures must remain capitalized and amortized over a 60-month period.¹⁴ This mandatory capitalization on state returns artificially inflates the “net book value assets” of innovative SMBs, accelerating the timeline upon which they reach the $5 million disqualification threshold.¹⁴

4. Competitive Landscape: How Maryland’s Definition Compares Regionally

To remain a “world-class environment to establish and run a business,” Maryland must ensure its incentives are as competitive as those in neighboring states.¹⁷ An analysis of regional peers reveals that many jurisdictions utilize more flexible metrics—such as gross receipts or employee counts—to define small business eligibility, specifically to avoid the pitfalls of the intangible asset inclusion.

Table 2: Regional Small Business Definitions

Source: 3

Maryland’s asset-based test, while shared by Pennsylvania, is increasingly out of step with the federal standard used for the R&D payroll tax offset, which relies on a $5 million gross receipts threshold.²² By using revenue rather than assets, the federal government and states like Virginia ensure that companies are only disqualified once they have achieved commercial success and the liquidity to pay taxes, rather than simply because they have been successful in their laboratory research.²⁴

5. Practical Solution 1: Transitioning to a Gross Receipts-Based Definition

The most direct and effective solution for the Maryland Legislature is to replace the “net book value assets” test with a “gross receipts” test that aligns with the federal definition of a Qualified Small Business (QSB). This change would shift the focus from a firm’s balance sheet valuation to its market-derived income, providing a more accurate reflection of its ability to utilize non-refundable credits.

Statutory Realignment

The legislature should amend Tax-General § 10-721(a)(8) to define a small business as a for-profit entity that has less than $5 million in Maryland gross receipts for the taxable year in which the expenses were incurred. To prevent established but low-revenue firms from exploiting the set-aside, the state could adopt the federal “five-year rule,” which limits QSB status to firms that have had gross receipts for no more than five years.¹⁸

This transition would immediately alleviate the pressure on software and biotechnology firms. A biotechnology startup could raise $20 million in venture capital to fund its research, but as long as it has not yet commercialized its therapeutic candidates, its gross receipts would remain near zero. Under a receipts-based test, this company would retain access to the $3.5 million refundable set-aside, ensuring that its capital is preserved for continued scientific advancement rather than being taxed away or stranded in carryforwards.⁴

Simplified Administration

A gross receipts test is significantly easier for both the Department of Commerce and the Comptroller to administer. “Net book value assets” is subject to complex accounting interpretations, particularly regarding the valuation of internally developed IP and the timing of amortization.¹ Gross receipts, by contrast, is a standard reporting line on both federal and state income tax returns.¹⁸ Utilizing a revenue-based test would reduce the administrative burden on SMBs, who currently must provide detailed balance sheet documentation to prove they have not inadvertently crossed the $5 million threshold through their own R&D successes.⁵

6. Practical Solution 2: Excluding Internally Generated Intangibles from the Asset Calculation

If the legislature prefers to maintain an asset-based threshold to ensure the set-aside is targeted at truly “small” firms, it should refine the definition of “net book value assets” to distinguish between different types of intangible value.

Carving Out Innovation-Derived Value

The legislature should amend § 10-721(a)(7) to exclude “internally generated intangible assets” from the $5 million threshold. Under this model, assets such as patents, software, and trade secrets that were developed by the taxpayer through qualified research would not count toward the disqualification limit. However, intangibles acquired from third parties—such as through the purchase of another company’s patent portfolio—would still be included.³

This solution addresses the “Innovation Trap” while preserving the original intent of the asset test. It recognizes that internally generated IP represents the future potential of the firm, whereas acquired IP often represents a transfer of wealth and existing market power. This approach would allow Maryland firms to build robust patent portfolios—which are essential for securing future rounds of venture capital—without fear that their scientific achievements will disqualify them from the very tax credits that made those achievements possible.⁴

Alignment with Existing Technology Programs

Maryland has already demonstrated a willingness to use non-asset-based metrics in other economic development programs. For example, the newly established “Income Tax Benefit Transfer Program” (HB 35) defines an “eligible technology company” based on its headquarters location and a specific number of qualified employees—ranging from at least one for new firms to at least ten for those incorporated for five years or more—provided the company has fewer than 225 employees in the United States.²⁶ Adopting a similar employee-count or revenue-count metric for the R&D small business set-aside would harmonize the state’s innovation policy and provide a more cohesive experience for growing businesses.

7. Implementation: Ensuring Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention

Any expansion of eligibility for the $3.5 million refundable set-aside must be balanced with rigorous oversight to prevent fraud, wastage, and the “gaming” of the small business designation. The Maryland Department of Commerce already faces challenges with oversubscription and aggressive R&D tax credit promoters who may attempt to inflate claims by including ineligible administrative or marketing costs.⁵

Modernizing the Certification Process

To implement the policy change effectively, the state should operationalize a multi-layered risk management strategy. This involves moving away from “one-time” interventions toward an integrated, ongoing process of verification.³⁰

• Identity and Affiliation Management: One risk of a gross receipts or asset-based test is the “fragmentation” of a large company into several smaller entities to claim multiple set-aside spots. The state must strictly enforce “Controlled Group” and aggregation rules, ensuring that the gross receipts or assets of all affiliated entities are combined when determining small business status.¹
• Data-Sharing via APIs: Instead of relying solely on self-reported balance sheets, the Department of Commerce and the Comptroller should leverage modern data-sharing practices, such as Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), to cross-reference R&D credit applications with existing payroll and corporate tax records.³⁰ This allows for the real-time detection of anomalies and ensures that only companies with a genuine Maryland footprint are receiving the refundable credit.
• Expert Eligibility Vetting: Given the technical nature of R&D in life sciences and AI, the state should employ a “Dual Professional Sign-off” for refundable claims. This requires both a CPA to verify financial quantification and a qualified engineer or subject matter expert to vet the technical eligibility of the activities under the Four-Part Test.²⁹

Addressing the Proration Squeeze

The Maryland R&D credit is already subject to intense proration. In some years, the growth credit has been oversubscribed by a factor of 11, reducing the effective credit rate from 10% to approximately 1.18%.⁵ If the definition of small business is expanded, more companies will qualify for the $3.5 million pool, potentially further diluting the credit’s value.

To avoid this “race to the bottom,” the state should consider a “First-$250,000” prioritization model, similar to the logic used in the HB 35 transfer program.²⁸ Under this model, the first $250,000 of each eligible small business’s claim could be prioritized for the set-aside, with amounts above that threshold subject to the standard proration. This ensures that the smallest, most capital-constrained firms receive the most meaningful liquidity.

8. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Long-Term Economic Return

A common concern regarding tax credit reform is the immediate impact on the state’s general fund. However, in the context of R&D incentives, the initial “cost” is more accurately framed as a strategic investment that generates a compounded return over time.

Framing the Initial Outlay

The immediate fiscal impact of amending the small business definition is primarily a “liquidity shift.” Because the total statewide cap is fixed at $12 million, the state’s total liability for R&D credits does not increase unless the legislature chooses to raise the cap.⁶ Instead, the change would reallocate a portion of that $12 million from the non-refundable pool to the refundable pool.

Table 3: Fiscal Impact Comparison

Source: 4

The primary “cost” is the acceleration of the payout. A non-refundable credit is a “deferred” liability for the state, as many firms may not use their carryforwards for several years. A refundable credit is an immediate cash outflow. However, for a state facing a budget deficit, it is vital to recognize that this outflow is precisely what anchors the firms that will eventually solve that deficit through job creation and corporate expansion.³²

The Multiplier Effect: Return on Innovation

The data from Maryland’s own economic development entities suggest that the R&D tax credit is a high-yield investment. TEDCO’s 2023 study found that its portfolio companies—many of which are the primary beneficiaries of the R&D credit—generated $140.3 million in state and local government revenues, a figure nearly three times larger than the state’s annual appropriation to the agency.³³

Furthermore, the Maryland Economic Development Association (MEDA) reported that every dollar invested in county economic development operations over the last three fiscal years generated an average of $8.81 in combined state and local tax revenue.³⁴ For high-tech SMBs, the return is often even higher due to the high wages associated with “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,” where the average small business payroll in Maryland exceeds $13.9 billion.³⁶ By providing the liquidity necessary for these firms to survive their early development years, the state is effectively seeding a future tax base that will pay for the program many times over through:

• Personal Income Tax: High-wage technical jobs (engineers, scientists, and researchers).³⁶
• Sales and Use Tax: Increased procurement by growing firms, particularly for specialized equipment and IT services.³⁷
• Corporate Income Tax: As startups transition into profitable, established enterprises.³⁹

9. The Importance of Change and the Consequences of Inaction

The decision to reform the intangible asset inclusion is not merely an accounting adjustment; it is a statement of intent regarding Maryland’s economic future. In the race to attract cutting-edge industries, the business climate and perceived “partnership” with state government are decisive factors for entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.³⁴

The Risk of the “Brain Drain”

Innovation is increasingly mobile. If a Maryland-based software startup finds that its successful development of intellectual property has disqualified it from critical state support, the incentive to relocate to a more “revenue-friendly” jurisdiction—such as Virginia or Massachusetts—becomes overwhelming.¹⁷ Virginia, for instance, has recently increased its available R&D funds and maintains a refundable credit that is highly utilized by smaller businesses.²⁴ Without reform, Maryland risks becoming a “testing ground” where firms incorporate to access early-stage grants, only to migrate to neighboring states the moment their IP portfolio matures.

Stifling the Artificial Intelligence and Life Science Pipelines

The next decade of economic growth will be dominated by artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and clean energy—all sectors that are inherently IP-intensive.¹⁷ By maintaining an asset test that counts “knowledge” as a disqualifying liability, Maryland is effectively capping the growth of its most strategic sectors. The Maryland Tech Council has already noted that the state’s budget challenges are partly the result of “flatlining private sector growth” in tech and life sciences.¹⁷ Reforming the R&D credit is a low-cost, high-leverage way to restart that engine.

The Negative Consequences of Maintaining the Status Quo

Failing to implement these changes will likely lead to:

• Reduced Liquidity for Startups: Innovative firms will be forced to choose between capitalizing their R&D (improving their balance sheet for investors) and remaining under the $5 million threshold (preserving their state tax refunds).⁴
• Loss of AI Leadership: AI firms, which must capitalize massive development costs under IRC § 174, will be disproportionately disqualified from the small business set-aside.¹⁴
• Increased Administrative Friction: Both businesses and state agencies will continue to struggle with the complexities of intangible asset valuation, leading to slower certification times and potential audit disputes.⁵

10. Strategic Conclusion

The Maryland Research and Development Tax Credit is a cornerstone of the state’s economic strategy, yet its effectiveness for the modern, intangible-driven economy is being undermined by an outdated asset test. By transitioning to a gross receipts-based definition or excluding internally generated intangibles from the calculation, the Maryland General Assembly can remove a significant barrier to innovation without increasing the program’s overall statutory cap.

These reforms will provide critical liquidity to the state’s most promising SMBs, ensuring they have the capital to navigate the “Valley of Death” and eventually transition into the high-wage, high-revenue engines that fuel Maryland’s long-term prosperity. In an increasingly competitive regional landscape, the cost of inaction is a slow erosion of the state’s innovative core; the cost of reform is a strategic investment in a resilient and technologically advanced future.

Works Cited

1. General Code Section § 10-721: Tax Credit Overview – Swanson Reed, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/maryland/glossary/general-code-section-10-721/
2. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Maryland? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/maryland-rd-tax-credit
3. accessed March 22, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/tax-general/title-10/subtitle-7/section-10-721/#:~:text=(7)%20%E2%80%9CNet%20book%20value,liabilities%2C%20minus%20depreciation%20and%20amortization.
4. Contract Research Expenses and Tax Benefits Explained – Swanson Reed, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/maryland/glossary/contract-research-expenses/
5. OFFICE OF FINANCE MARYLAND RESEARCH AND …, accessed March 22, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/Documents/ProgramReport/RD-tax-credit-annual-report-2019.pdf
6. Growth Credit Cap (Allocation Limit) Impact on R&D – Swanson Reed, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/maryland/glossary/growth-credit-cap-allocation-limit/
7. Baltimore R&D Tax Credit Overview for Businesses – Swanson Reed, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/maryland/case-studies/baltimore/
8. 2025 Regular Session – Fiscal and Policy Note for House Bill 919 – Maryland, accessed March 22, 2026, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/fnotes/bil_0009/hb0919.pdf
9. Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D) – Maryland Commerce, accessed March 22, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/fund/programs-for-businesses/research-and-development-tax-credit
10. Maryland R&D Tax Credits – Get Info and Calculate R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/maryland-r-d-tax-credits
11. Maryland Tax – General Code Section 10-721 (2025) – Qualified Research and Development Expenses. [Effective Until June 30, 2027] – Justia Law, accessed March 22, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/tax-general/title-10/subtitle-7/section-10-721/
12. Maryland Research and Development Tax Credit – BlueCap Economic Advisors, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.bluecapeconomicadvisors.com/post/maryland-research-and-development-tax-credit
13. How Taxes Affect the Incentive to Invest in New Intangible Assets | CBO.gov, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-11/54648-Intangible_Assets.pdf
14. Tax Alert Maryland Impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (PL 119 …, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.marylandcomptroller.gov/content/dam/mdcomp/tax/legal-publications/alerts/tax-alert-maryland-impacts-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act.pdf
15. R&D Deductions Restored: A New Era for Innovation and Tax Relief, accessed March 22, 2026, https://strategictaxplanning.net/resources/r-d-deductions-restored-a-new-era-for-innovation-and-tax-relief
16. 60-day Report One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Maryland Board of Revenue Estimates, accessed March 22, 2026, https://mdbre.gov/BRE_reports/federalimpact/60-day-report-obbb.pdf
17. Priorities – Maryland Tech Council, accessed March 22, 2026, https://mdtechcouncil.com/advocacy/priorities/
18. Can Businesses with Less Than $5 Million in Gross Receipts Claim the R&D Tax Credit?, accessed March 22, 2026, https://tannerco.com/can-businesses-with-less-than-5-million-in-gross-receipts-claim-the-rd-tax-credit/
19. Chapter 017B – Act of Mar. 4, 1971,P.L. 6, No. 2 Cl. 72 – TAX REFORM CODE OF 1971 – Pennsylvania General Assembly, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.palegis.us/statutes/unconsolidated/law-information/view-statute?txtType=HTM&yr=1971&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=002&chpt=17B
20. The New Jersey Research and Development Tax Credit – NJ.gov, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/pdf/pubs/tb/tb114.pdf
21. SELECTED STATES’ R&D TAX CREDITS – C G A – CT.gov, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/2015-R-0209.htm
22. R&D tax credits guide for CPAs – ADP, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-guide-for-cpas.aspx
23. R&D Tax Credit FAQs For Large and Small Businesses – BDO USA, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/r-d-tax-credit-faqs-for-large-and-small-businesses
24. Virginia R&D Tax Credit: 2025 Sunset Implications and 2026 Outlook | Cherry Bekaert, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/virginia-rd-tax-credit-changes-impact-on-businesses/
25. Virginia R&D Tax Credit Services – TaxTaker, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.taxtaker.com/rd-tax-credit/virginia
26. MD HB35 – BillTrack50, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1762215
27. HB35 | Maryland 2025 | Economic Development – Income Tax Benefit Transfer Program – Establishment – Legislative Tracking | PolicyEngage, accessed March 22, 2026, https://trackbill.com/bill/maryland-house-bill-35-economic-development-income-tax-benefit-transfer-program-establishment/2581004/
28. 2025 Regular Session – Fiscal and Policy Note for House Bill 35 – Maryland, accessed March 22, 2026, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/fnotes/bil_0005/hb0035.pdf
29. Common R&D tax credit scams to avoid, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/common-rd-tax-credit-scams-to-avoid/
30. Modernizing fraud prevention in government programs – Thomson Reuters Legal Solutions, accessed March 22, 2026, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/modernizing-fraud-prevention-government-risk-management/
31. Six best practices to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/six-best-practices-stop-waste-fraud-and-abuse
32. 2025A Unified Voice to Create Change – Maryland Tech Council, accessed March 22, 2026, https://mdtechcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-PolicyPlatform.pdf
33. The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of TEDCO’s Seven Core Programs—FY2023, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.tedcomd.com/sites/default/files/2024-02/2023%20Economic%20Impact%20Study.pdf
34. MEDA Study Shows Record Return on Investment for County Economic Development in Maryland, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.medamd.com/public-policy-awareness/meda-study-shows-record-return-on-investment-for-county-economic-development-in-maryland/
35. MEDA Announces $8.81 Return On Investment From Every Dollar Invested in Economic Development in Maryland, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.medamd.com/news/meda-announces-8-81-return-on-investment-from-every-dollar-invested-in-maryland-economic-development/
36. Maryland Small Business Economic Profile – SBA Office of Advocacy, accessed March 22, 2026, https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Small-Business-Economic-Profile-MD.pdf
37. T00 Department of Commerce – Department of Budget and Management – Maryland.gov, accessed March 22, 2026, https://dbm.maryland.gov/budget/FY2025Testimony/T00.pdf
38. Tax Updates from the 2025 Legislative Session – Comptroller of Maryland, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.marylandcomptroller.gov/individuals/2025-tax-updates.html
39. 2025 Research & Development Tax Credit Report to the Pennsylvania General Assembly (DOP-26), accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/revenue/documents/news-and-statistics/reportsstats/taxcredits/researchdevcredit/documents/2025_rd_report.pdf
40. New Jersey R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 22, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/new-jersey-r-d-tax-credits
41. Priorities MDT – Maryland Tech Council, accessed March 22, 2026, https://mdtechcouncil.com/communities/technology/priorities-mdt/