" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

09–9030 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

November 12, 2009 

and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the 

110th Congress as amended 

November 2009 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

54–540 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REVIEW NO. 

2009

09–9030 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

————— 

Report and Findings 

Transmitted to the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

November 12, 2009 

and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the 

110th Congress as amended 

November 2009 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

OFFICE OF 

CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

BOARD 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

DAVID SKAGGS, Chair 

PORTER GOSS, Co-Chair 

YVONNE BURKE 

KAREN ENGLISH 

ALLISON HAYWARD 

JAY EAGEN 

WILLIAM FRENZEL 

ABNER MIKVA 

Leo J. Wise, Chief Counsel & Staff Director 

Omar Ashmawy, Investigation Counsel 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(1) 

REPORT 

Review No. 09–9030 

The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter ‘‘the 

Board’’), by a vote of no less than four members, on October 23, 

2009, adopted the following report and ordered it to be transmitted 

to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United 

States House of Representatives. 

SUBJECT: Representative Fortney Pete Stark 

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Representative 

Fortney Pete Stark has listed a house he owns in Harwood, Maryland as his principal residence on Maryland tax forms. By doing so, 

Representative Stark received state and county homestead tax 

credits and any annual increases in his home assessments were 

capped at no more than 10 percent. In order to qualify for the 

Maryland Homestead Tax Credit, Maryland law requires the home 

to be used as the owner’s ‘‘principal residence’’—where the homeowner regularly resides and is designated for voting, obtaining a 

driver’s license, and filing income tax returns. Representative 

Stark pays California resident taxes, has a California driver’s license and is registered to vote in California. 

Representative Stark’s conduct may have violated Maryland law 

and the Code of Ethics for Government Service if he misrepresented information on the Application for Homestead Tax Credit 

Eligibility in order to prove eligibility. 

RECOMMENDATION: The Board of the Office of Congressional 

Ethics recommends that the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct further review the above allegations. 

VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6 

VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0 

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO 

PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: Leo Wise, Staff Director & Chief 

Counsel. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(3) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3 

A. Summary of Allegations ................................................................... 3 

B. Jurisdictional Statement .................................................................. 4 

C. Procedural History ............................................................................ 4 

D. Summary of Investigative Activity .................................................. 5 

II. THE MARYLAND HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT PROGRAM AND REPRESENTATIVE STARK’S APPLICATION AND ELIGIBILITY ............ 5 

A. Applicable Law, Rules and Standards of Conduct ......................... 5 

B. Maryland Homestead Tax Credit .................................................... 6 

C. Representative Stark’s Homestead Tax Credit Application .......... 8 

D. Interview with Representative Stark .............................................. 11 

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 12 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS ............... 12 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
(5) 

1 As per Rule 9 of the OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS, RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATIONS 11 (2009), the Board shall refer a matter to the Standards Committee if it determines there is a substantial reason to believe the allegation. 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW 

Review No. 09–9030 

On October 23, 2009, the Board of the Office of Congressional 

Ethics (hereafter the ‘‘Board’’ and the ‘‘OCE’’) adopted the following 

findings of fact and accompanying citations to law, regulations, 

rules and standards of conduct (in italics). The Board notes that 

these findings do not constitute a determination that a violation actually occurred. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

1. There is substantial reason to believe that Representative 

Fortney Pete Stark may have violated House rules 1 by misrepresenting information on the Maryland Application for Homestead 

Tax Credit Eligibility. Specifically, sometime between December 

2008 and March 2009 Representative Stark certified a house he 

owns in Harwood, Maryland, was his ‘‘principle residence’’ under 

Maryland law. By doing so, he qualified for the Maryland Homestead Tax Credit. As a result, Representative Stark received state 

and county homestead tax credits and the increases in his home assessments were capped at no more than 10 percent per year. In 

order to qualify for the Maryland Homestead Tax Credit, Maryland 

law requires the home to be used as the owner’s ‘‘principal residence.’’ Maryland law defines ‘‘principle residence’’ as the one 

dwelling where the homeowner regularly resides and is designated 

for voting, obtaining a driver’s license, and filing income tax returns. 

2. Sometime between December 2008 and March 2009, Representative Stark certified to Maryland that he is registered to vote 

in Maryland, while in fact he is registered to vote in California. 

Representative Stark later changed his certification. 

3. Representative Stark told the OCE he did not certify that he 

voted in Maryland nor did he later change his answer. 

B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

4. The allegations that were the subject of this review concern 

Representative Fortney Pete Stark, a Member of the United States 

House of Representatives from the 13th District of California. The 

Resolution the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter ‘‘OCE’’) directs 

that, ‘‘[n]o review shall be undertaken . . .by the board of any alVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 054540 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\54-540\54-540.TXT 54-540

steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
6 

2 H. Res 895, 110th Cong. § 1(e) (2008) (as amended) 3 A preliminary review is ‘‘requested’’ in writing by members of the Board of the OCE. The 

request for a preliminary review is ‘‘received’’ by the OCE on a date certain. According to H. 

Res. 895 of the 110th Congress (hereafter ‘‘the Resolution’), the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is 30 days from the date of receipt of the Board’s request. 4 According to the Resolution, the Board must vote (as opposed to make a written authorization) on whether to conduct a second-phase review in a matter before the expiration of the 30- 

day preliminary review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the second-phase commences the 

day after the preliminary review ends. 5 The 14-day extension expires after the 45-day second-phase review ends. The 14-day extension does not begin on the date of the Board vote. 6 The Resolution provides that the names of cooperating witnesses not be included in a referral to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. H. Res 895, 110th Cong. § 1(c) (2008) 

(as amended). This provision applies to testimonial evidence and not to documentary evidence. 

leged violation that occurred before the date of adoption of this resolution.’’ 2 The House adopted this Resolution on March 11, 2008. 

Because the conduct under review occurred after March 11, 2008, 

review by the Board is in accordance with the Resolution. 

5. The Board notes that representations made by Members of 

Congress regarding their state residency implicates their official 

duties as a Member’s state residency is a qualification for the office 

they hold. 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6. The OCE received a written request for a preliminary review 

in this matter signed by at least two members of the Board on 

June 5, 2009. The preliminary review commenced on that date.3

7. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a secondphase review in this matter on June 26, 2009. The second phase 

review commenced on June 29, 2009.4 The second-phase review 

was scheduled to end on August 13, 2009. 

8. The Board voted to extend the 45-day second-phase review by 

an additional 14 days on August 5, 2009, as provided for under the 

Resolution. Following the extension, the second-phase review was 

scheduled to end on August 28, 2009.5

9. The second-phase review ended on August 28, 2009. 

10. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct for further review and adopted these 

findings on October 23, 2009. 

11. The report and findings in this matter were transmitted to 

the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on November 12, 

2009. 

D. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY

12. The OCE requested documentary and in some cases testimonial information from the following sources: 

(1) Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation 

Taxpayer Services Division; 

(2) Witness A, Associate Director of the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation Taxpayer Services Division; 6

(3) Witness B, Supervisor of the Homestead Tax Credit Application Program 

(4) Anne Arundel County; and 

(5) Representative Stark. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
7 

7 72 Strat., Part 2, B12 (1958), H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong. 8 Rule 9 of the OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS, RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF 

INVESTIGATIONS 11 (2009) provides that ‘‘[t]he Board shall refer a matter to the Standards 

Committee for further review if it determines there is a substantial reason to believe the allegation based on all the information then known to the Board.’’ 9 Id. 10 Anne Arundel County Maryland Website, Real Estate Charges, Credits and Exemptions 

tax records (Exhibit 1 at 09–9030—0002—09–9030—0005). 

II. THE MARYLAND HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT PROGRAM 

AND REPRESENTATIVE STARK’S APPLICATION AND ELIGIBILITY 

A. APPLICABLE LAW, RULES, AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

13. Maryland law: 

Under the Maryland Code, Tax—Property Article §14–1004, ‘‘A 

person who willfully or with the intent to evade payment of a 

tax under this article or to prevent the collection of a tax under 

this article provides false information or a false answer to a 

property tax interrogatory under this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding 

$5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 18 months or both.’’ 

14. Code of Ethics for Government Service: 

Under the Code of Ethics for Government Service 7, ‘‘all Government employees, including office holders . . . should uphold the 

Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States 

and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.’’ 

15. If Representative Stark willfully misrepresented information 

on Maryland’s Application for Homestead Tax Credit Eligibility in 

order to certify his Maryland house as his principle residence 

under Maryland law and thereby qualify for the corresponding tax 

credits, then he may have violated Maryland law and paragraph 2 

of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. 

16. For the purposes of the Board’s deliberations, the Board considered the Maryland tax code to be a ‘‘legal regulation,’’ as described in paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service, and the state of Maryland to be a ‘‘government therein’’ the 

United States. 

17. Based on the facts collected by the OCE, the Board concludes 

there is a substantial reason to believe the allegation that is the 

subject of this review.8

B. MARYLAND HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT

18. Representative Pete Stark represents the 13th Congressional 

District of California. 

19. Representative Stark and his wife have had an ownership interest in a home in Harwood, Maryland, since at least 2000. 

20. Based on information available on the Anne Arundel County 

Maryland Real Estate Charges, Credits and Exemptions’ website, 

the Starks’ Harwood home has been listed as their principal residence since 2007 and Representative Stark has been receiving the 

Homestead Tax Credit since at least 2007.9 From 2000 to 2007 

Representative Stark received tax bills for the Harwood residence 

that did not show the Homestead Tax Credit.10 In calendar year 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
8 

11 Id. 12 COMAR 18.07.03.01 (B)(3). See also Maryland Assessment Procedures Manual (COMAR 

18.07.03.01(B)(3)) at 1. 13 Memorandum of Interview of Witness A and Witness B (Exhibit 2 at 09–9030—0007). 14 Maryland Assessment Procedures Manual (COMAR 18.07.03.01(B)(3)) at 1. 15 COMAR Tax-Property, Title 9, Subtitle 1, § 9–105 (a)(4). 16 COMAR 18.07.03.01(B)(3). 17 Memorandum of Interview of Witness A and Witness B (Exhibit 2 at 09–9030—0007). 18 Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation Homestead Tax Credit Application 

(Exhibit 3 at 09–9030—0011—09–9030—0012). 19 ‘‘The Homestead Tax Credit,’’ Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxations, 

www.md.dat.md.us/sdatweb/homestead.html last viewed by staff on May 26, 2009. 20 Recreated Maryland Homestead Tax Credit application (Exhibit 4 at 09–9030—0014—09– 

9030—0015). 

2009, the year directly affected by his answers on the 2008 application, Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in state and county 

tax credits.11

21. The Maryland Homestead Tax Credit limits the increase in 

taxable assessments each year to 10 percent for the homeowner’s 

‘‘principal residence.’’ Maryland state law defines ‘‘principal residence’’ as the one dwelling where the homeowner regularly resides 

and is the location designated by the owner for the legal purposes 

of voting, obtaining a driver’s license, and filing income tax returns.12 In an interview with Witness A, Associate Director of the 

Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT), 

the witness indicated that an individual must vote in Maryland, 

possess a Maryland driver’s license, and file a Maryland resident 

income tax return in order to be eligible for the tax credit.13 For 

married couples, at least one spouse must meet all residency requirements.14 The applicant must also have a ‘‘legal interest’’ in 

the property, which is defined as ‘‘an interest in a dwelling: as a 

sole owner; as a joint tenant; as a tenant in common; as a tenant 

by the entireties; through membership in a cooperative; under a 

land installment contract, or as a holder of a life estate.15

22. In October 2007, the Maryland General Assembly passed a 

law that codified the requirement to receive the Homestead Tax 

Credit and instructed SDAT to establish a procedure for Maryland 

homeowners to certify their eligibility to receive the Homestead 

Tax Credit.16

23. Prior to October 2007, the requirements for eligibility for the 

Homestead Tax Credit were the same.17

24. In order to prevent the improper granting of the Homestead 

Tax Credit to rented properties or multiple properties of a single 

owner SDAT began mailing a one-time application to homeowners 

to establish eligibility for the tax credit.18 The application was included in the assessment notice mailed to one-third of Maryland 

homeowners at the end of each calendar year, for a period of three 

years beginning December 2008.19

C. REPRESENTATIVE STARK’S HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT APPLICATION

25. The OCE requested a copy of the application Representative 

Stark submitted to Maryland from the Congressman. Representative Stark indicated that he did not have a copy of the application 

because he submitted it online. He then, without any prompting by 

the OCE, provided the OCE a hand-done version of the application 

he submitted online.20 On that document he indicated: 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
9 

21 The OCE sought and received Representative Stark’s permission to request a copy of his 

Homestead Tax Credit application from Maryland. 22 Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation Homestead Tax Credit online application for Representative Stark (Exhibit 5 at 09–9030—0017). The date displayed on the upper 

right corner of the document represents the day the documented was printed in response to an 

OCE Request for Information. 23 Memorandum of Interview of Witness A and Witness B (Exhibit 2 at 09–9030—0009). 

26. The OCE later obtained a copy of the application Representative Stark submitted on line from SDAT.21 The information Congressman Stark originally submitted on-line (recorded by the State 

of Maryland) shows the following 22 : 

27. The Board takes note of question 4 where Congressman 

Stark indicated that his home in Harwood, Maryland, was the 

property from which he was registered to vote. When the OCE inquired further, SDAT explained that when Congressman Stark initially filed his application he did in fact answer question 4 in the 

affirmative.23

28. However, on or about March 16, 2009, according to SDAT 

records, Congressman Stark called the SDAT office and asked that 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54540.001 54540.002
10 

24 Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation internal electronic note attached to 

Representative Stark’s Homestead Tax Credit file (Exhibit 6 at 09–9030—0019). 25 Bronx Representative Loses a Tax Break’’ The New York Times, March 14, 2009 (Exhibit 

7 at 09–9030—0021—09–9030—0022). 26 Memorandum of Interview Representative Stark (Exhibit 10 at 09–9030—0028) 27 Memorandum of Interview of Witness A and Witness B (Exhibit 2 at 09–9030—0008). 28 California Form 540–ES for Representative Stark and Mrs. Deborah Stark (Exhibit 8 at 

09–9030—00024). 29 Letter from William G. Robinson to Representative and Mrs. Stark regarding their 2008 

Maryland Non-resident Income Tax Return (Exhibit 9 at 09–9030—0026). 30 Memorandum of Interview of Witness A and Witness B (Exhibit 2 at 09–9030—0009). 31 COMAR 18.07.03.01 (B)(3). See also Maryland Assessment Procedures Manual (COMAR 

18.07.03.01(B)(3)) at 1. 

his answer to question 4 be changed from the affirmative to the 

negative.24

29. The Board notes that the first press report on a Member of 

Congress improperly receiving the Homestead Tax Credit appeared 

on March 14, 2009, two days before Representative Stark called to 

change his answer, in the New York Times and concerned another 

Member of Congress.25

30. Representative Stark told the OCE that both he and his wife 

are registered to vote in Alameda County, California.26

31. Congressman Stark and his wife maintain California automobile licenses. Congressman Stark accurately answered this question on the Maryland application, however, based on SDAT procedures this did not disqualify him for the credit.27

32. Representative Stark and his wife filed a 2008 California 

resident income tax return.28 Furthermore, it appears Representative Stark and his wife also filed a Maryland Non-Resident Income 

Tax Return for calendar year 2008.29 Both returns were filed from 

the Harwood, Maryland, address. According to Witness A, had 

SDAT been aware that Representative Stark filed a Maryland NonResident return, that fact alone would have been grounds to disallow the credit.30 However, given the vagueness of question 2, the 

Board notes that, despite SDAT’s intentions, the question appears 

to allow an applicant to answer the question in the affirmative if 

the applicant files either a Maryland resident or non-resident return from their Maryland address. 

33. The Board notes that Representative Stark correctly answered question 3 of the application, relating to his driver’s license. 

According to Maryland law the fact that Representative Stark possessed a California driver’s license made him ineligible to receive 

the Homestead Tax Credit.31 However, SDAT’s internal policy is to 

not reject an application for the credit solely because the address 

is not the one from which the property owner receives a driver’s liVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 054540 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\54-540\54-540.TXT 54-540

steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS54540.003
11 

32 Memorandum of Interview of Witness A and Witness B (Exhibit 2 at 09–9030—0008). 33 Id. 34 Memorandum of Interview Rep. Stark (Exhibit 10 at 09–9030—0028). 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. at 09–9030—0029. 39 Id. 40 Id. 41 Id. 42 Request for Information to Representative Stark dated July 31, 2009 (Exhibit 11 at 09– 

9030—0031—09–9030—0033). 43 Email from Representative Stark’s Chief of Staff dated September 22, 2009 (Exhibit 12 at 

09–9030—0035). 

cense.32 However, if this fact is brought to the attention of SDAT, 

then the credit may be revoked.33

D. INTERVIEW WITH REPRESENTATIVE STARK

34. The OCE interviewed Representative Stark on May 29, 2009. 

Representative Stark voluntarily agreed to an interview. At the beginning of the interview Representative Stark refused to discuss 

what he knew about the Maryland Homestead Tax Credit program 

and his eligibility.34 Eventually, he spoke in some detail about his 

application for the credit. Initially he indicated that he did not recall completing the application.35 However, later during the interview he stated that he personally completed the application online. 

Representative Stark also said that that he was aware that the application for the tax credit had eligibility requirements. Representative Stark specifically expressed his knowledge that a person must 

be registered to vote in Maryland.36 After completing the form, 

Representative Stark recalled that the credit was denied.37

35. When specifically asked, Representative Stark also stated 

that he did not call the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation to change his answer to the tax credit application.38 The Congressman also said he could not think of anyone 

who would have called SDAT on his behalf.39 He reviewed a copy 

of the online application he actually submitted, shown above in 

paragraph 20, and admitted that his answers to the voting question was incorrect. He could not explain why the answers were incorrect.40

36. Approximately 15 minutes into the interview it became apparent to the OCE staff that the Congressman was video recording 

the interview.41 A Request for Information was submitted to Representative Stark asking for a copy of the recording on July 31, 

2009.42 Congressman Stark denied the request.43

III. CONCLUSION 

37. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Standards 

Committee further review of the above described allegations concerning Representative Stark. 

IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 

38. There was no information relevant to this review that the 

Board was unable to obtain. 


steuser on CDPSPC2PFRM with REPORTS
12
EXHIBIT 1 

09-9030_0001

13
14
09-9030_0002

15
09-9030_0003

16
09-9030_0004

17
09-9030_0005

18
EXHIBIT 2 

09-9030_0006

19
20
Witness A and B MOI – Page 1 of 3 Office of Congressional Ethics

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW

In Re: Witness A and Witness B 

Review No: 09-9030 

Date: June 23, 2009 

Location: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation 

 300 W. Preston Street 

 Baltimore, MD 21201 

Time: 1314hrs – 1450 hrs (approximately) 

Participants: Leo Wise 

 Omar Ashmawy 

 Bryson Morgan 

Summary: Witness A is the Associate Director of the Maryland State Department of 

Assessments and Taxation (MDSDAT). In this capacity, he oversees the Maryland Homestead 

Tax Credit. Witness B is the Supervisor of the Homestead Tax Credit Application Program. 

Witness B oversees the eligibility of individuals for the Homestead Tax Credit. 

1. Maryland created the Homestead Tax Credit program in 1977. In order to qualify for the 

Maryland Homestead Tax Credit, Maryland law requires the home to be used as the owner’s 

“principal residence” – where the homeowner regularly resides as is designated for voting, 

obtaining a driver’s license, and filing income tax returns. 

2. Prior to 2007, a homeowner was automatically granted the Homestead Tax Credit if the 

owner was listed as a first-time homebuyer or if the address for the receipt of assessments 

and property taxes was the address of the taxable property, and (1) MDSDAT had not 

determined that the property was a rental property, (2) MDSDAT assessors had not 

discovered that the property was not owner-occupied, and (3) if mail was not being 

forwarded from the address. 

3. Individuals receiving the Homestead Tax Credit who are nonetheless ineligible for the credit 

do not have an affirmative obligation to remove their property from the Homestead Tax 

Credit program. It is the obligation of the MDSDAT to discover ineligible recipients and 

remove them from the program. 

09-9030_0007

21
Witness A and B MOI – Page 2 of 3 Office of Congressional Ethics

4. In order to prevent the improper granting of the homestead tax credit on rented or multiple 

properties of a single owner, the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation 

began mailing a one-time application to homeowners to establish eligibility for the tax credit. 

The application was included in the assessment notice mailed to one-third of Maryland 

homeowners at the end of each calendar year, for a period of three years beginning December 

2008.

5. The first round of applications was sent on December 27, 2007. The second round of 

applications was sent on December 31, 2008. 

6. Individuals who failed to return the application will continue to receive the Homestead Tax 

Credit until December 21, 2012. 

7. While the application asks five questions which mirror the requirements for the credit (single 

principal residence, location for filing income taxes, driver’s license, voter registration, rental 

status) if an applicant indicates that the property is their “single principal residence” and that 

they have used the address for the purposes of filing federal taxes MDSDAT automatically 

grants the tax credit. 

8. MDSDAT does not reject a Homestead Tax Credit application solely because the applicant 

does not use the address as the location from which they are registered to vote, and this fact 

does not flag the application for further MDSDAT scrutiny. If this fact is brought to the 

attention of MDSDAT, however, the credit may be revoked. 

9. MDSDAT does not reject a Homestead Tax Credit application solely because the address is 

not the one from which the owner has received a driver’s license, and this fact does not flag 

the application for further MDSDAT scrutiny. If this fact is brought to the attention of 

MDSDAT, however, the credit may be revoked. 

10. Only if the person indicates that part of the property was rented would the application be 

approved yet “flagged” for later review by an MDSDAT employee. If, for example, an 

applicant indicated that the property was their “single principal residence” and their address 

for the purposes of filing federal taxes yet also indicated that it was not the address from 

which they were registered to vote or received a driver’s license, the application would be 

automatically approved and not flagged for further MDSDAT scrutiny. MDSDAT does not 

engage in a more thorough initial analysis of applications due to resource constraints.

09-9030_0008

22
Witness A and B MOI – Page 3 of 3 Office of Congressional Ethics

11. The Homestead Tax Credit Application was mailed to Representative Stark’s Harwood, MD 

address on Dec. 31, 2008. Representative Stark returned the application, indicating that (1) 

the property was the “single principal residence” of the owner, (2) that the property was the 

location from which the homeowner would file federal and Maryland income tax returns, (3) 

that the address was not the location from which the owner had received a driver’s license or 

vehicle registrations, (4) that the address was the location from which the homeowner was 

registered to vote, and (5) that no part of the property was rented.

12. One or two days prior to March 16, 2009, Representative Stark contacted the MDSDAT and 

requested that his Homestead Tax Credit Application be changed to indicate that the address 

was not the address from which the owner was registered to vote. MDSDAT removed the 

Homestead Tax Credit from Representative Stark’s property on May 1, 2009.

13. MDSDAT records indicated that, at one time in the past, Representative Stark had been 

issued a Maryland driver’s license. If MDSDAT knew that Representative Stark held a valid 

California driver’s license at the time he submitted the application, that fact alone would 

have been grounds for rejection of the credit.

14. If MDSDAT knew that Representative Stark had filed a 2008 Maryland Non-Resident 

income tax return, that fact alone would have been grounds for rejections of the credit.

I prepared this Memorandum of Interview on June 24, 2009 after interviewing Witness A and 

Witness B on July 23, 2009. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter 

discussed with Witness A and Witness B on June 23, 2009. 

Omar S. Ashmawy 

Investigative Counsel 

09-9030_0009

23
24
EXHIBIT 3 

09-9030_0010

25
26
09-9030_0011

27
09-9030_0012

28
EXHIBIT 4 

09-9030_0013

29
30
09-9030_0014

31
09-9030_0015

32
EXHIBIT 5 

09-9030_0016

33
34
09-9030_0017

35
36
EXHIBIT 6 

09-9030_0018

37
38
09-9030_0019

39
40
EXHIBIT 7 

09-9030_0020

41
42
March 14, 2009 

Bronx Representative Loses a Tax Break

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland tax officials said that a New York representative is not entitled to a 

residents’ tax break on the house in a Washington suburb that he has claimed as his primary residence for at 

least 10 years. 

The representative, Eliot Engel, calls himself a lifelong resident of the Bronx, where he rents an apartment. 

But he and his wife list the house in Potomac, Md., as their primary home on Maryland property tax forms.

They paid nearly $500,000 for the house in 1993, and it has almost doubled in value. The Engels have 

received thousands of dollars in tax credits that are reserved for people who declare Maryland their home. 

The state agency made the decision on the credits late last month. 

Mr. Engel, whose district includes much of the northern Bronx and parts of Westchester and Rockland 

Counties, is not the only politician who has been found to be improperly receiving the credit. Maryland tax 

officials first revoked his credit in late 2005, about the time that several elected officials representing other 

states were informed that they would have their credits removed. 

Mr. Engel and his wife contested the loss of their Maryland primary-residence status, which was reinstated, 

then revoked again after Maryland laws were changed recently. 

Jeremy Tomasulo, an aide to the congressman, maintains that Mr. Engel’s primary residence has always 

been in the Bronx. 

But his property tax documents say otherwise, a claim that was worth nearly $7,000 in credits to Mr. Engel 

and his wife over the past four years because people in Maryland are eligible for state and county tax breaks 

on their primary residence 

To receive the credit, homeowners must live in Maryland at least six months of the year, have a Maryland 

driver’s license, be registered to vote in Maryland and file Maryland income taxes. 

Mr. Engel and his wife do not qualify since they both have New York licenses and vote in New York. Mr. 

Tomasulo said that Mr. Engel filed his income taxes in New York, and did not respond to questions about Ms. 

Engel’s taxes. 

Aides to Mr. Engel said that he had previously responded to an inquiry by the Montgomery County 

Department of Finance, which said that he was eligible for an exemption. 

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready 

copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool 

that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional 

information. Order a reprint of this article now.

Bronx Representative Loses a Tax Break Meant for Maryland Residents Only - NYTimes... Page 1 of 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/nyregion/14engel.html?_r=1&sq=Brox Representati... 10/28/2009

09-9030_0021

43
Roberta Ward, manager of the Montgomery County office of the Maryland Department of Assessments and 

Taxation, said her office handled that inquiry. She said Mr. Engel’s primary residence claim was revoked, but 

was reinstated after an appeal that included the submission of Maryland income tax records for his wife. 

Since then, however, Maryland has tightened the eligibility requirements. Now, at least one spouse of a 

homeowning couple must meet all the residency requirements. 

Mr. Tomasulo said Mr. Engel believed that the credit should be removed if he is not eligible. 

“He will await their determination of his status and will make sure that he is in full compliance with their 

evaluation,” Mr. Tomasulo said in an e-mail message. 

Mr. Engel was re-elected at least five times to represent the Bronx while property tax documents indicated 

his primary residence was in Potomac. 

New York and federal laws require that representatives be inhabitants of the state they represent when they 

are elected. 

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map

Bronx Representative Loses a Tax Break Meant for Maryland Residents Only - NYTimes... Page 2 of 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/nyregion/14engel.html?_r=1&sq=Brox Representati... 10/28/2009

09-9030_0022

44
EXHIBIT 8 

09-9030_0023

45
09-9030_0024

46
EXHIBIT 9 

09-9030_0025

47
48
49
50
EXHIBIT 10 

09-9030_0027

51
52
Rep. Stark MOI – Page 1 of 2 Office of Congressional Ethics

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Memorandum of Interview

In Re: Representative Fortney Pete Stark 

Review #: 09-9030 

Date: July 29, 2009 

Location: 239 Cannon Building 

Time: 12:00 pm – 12:45 (approximately) 

Participants: Omar Ashmawy 

 Kedric L. Payne 

Summary: Rep. Pete Stark represents the 13th Congressional District of California. The OCE 

Board initiated a preliminary review and subsequently a second-phase review into allegations a 

home owned by Representative Pete Stark received a Maryland homestead tax credit after 

October 2007. By receiving this credit Representative Stark’s conduct may have violated 

Maryland state law and House Rule 23. We requested an interview with Rep. Pete Stark and he 

consented to an interview. Rep. Stark made the following statements in response to our 

questioning:

1. Rep. Stark was given an 18 U.S.C. § 1001 warning, but would not sign a written 

acknowledgement of the warning until he spoke with his attorney. However, he consented to an 

interview. 

2. Rep. Stark initially stated during the interview that he did not know anything about the 

Maryland Homestead Tax Credit. Rep. Stark then stated that he did not choose to discuss what 

he knows about the Maryland Homestead Tax Credit. Later during the interview, he explained 

that he knew that the application for the Tax Credit had requirements for being eligible for the 

tax credit, including that a person must be registered to vote in Maryland.

3. Rep. Stark initially stated during the interview that he did not recall completing the Tax 

Credit application online. Later during the interview, he stated that he did in fact personally 

complete the on-line application for the Tax Credit. Rep. Stark recalls receiving the form at the 

beginning of 2009. After completing the form, he stated that he was denied the Tax Credit. 

4. He stated that neither owner of he nor his wife is registered to vote in Maryland. 

09-9030_0028

53
Rep. Stark MOI – Page 2 of 2 Office of Congressional Ethics

5. Rep. Stark stated that he did not call the Maryland State Department of Assessments and 

Taxation Taxpayer Services Division (“SDOT”) to change his answers to the Tax Credit 

application on March 16, 2009. He also stated that he cannot think of anyone who would have 

called SDOT on his behalf. 

6. During the interview, Rep. Stark reviewed his calendar on his computer and stated that he was 

at John Hopkins on March 16, 2009, around 2:00 pm or 3:00 pm. Rep. Stark stated that he will 

not provide the OCE with his calendar. 

7. Rep. Stark reviewed the OCE’s copy of the online Tax Credit application and the “recreated” 

version that he provided. He recognized that the answers in the on-line application are incorrect.

He explained that he does not know why the on-line application is incorrect.

8. Throughout the interview Rep. Stark was extremely belligerent and frequently insulted the 

OCE staff members interviewing him. Approximately 15 minutes into the interview it also 

became apparent to the OCE interviewers that Rep. Stark was videotaping the exchange. 

I prepared this Memorandum of Interview on July 29, 2009 after interviewing Rep. Stark today.

I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with Rep. Stark on July 

29, 2009. 

Kedric Payne 

Investigative Counsel 

09-9030_0029

54
EXHIBIT 11 

09-9030_0030

55
56
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20515 

July 31, 2009 

Honorable Pete Stark 

239 Cannon HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

 THIRD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 

Re: Review No. 09-9030

Dear Congressman Stark: 

This Request for Information is pursuant to a Second-Phase Review authorized by the Board of 

the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) on June 26, 2009. 

Thank you for your response to our First and Second Requests for Information. We request the 

following additional cooperation: 

(1) A copy of the video recording made during the July 29, 2009 interview between 

Representative Pete Stark and staff members of the OCE in Representative Stark’s office. 

OCE may make additional information requests, as warranted by the facts and circumstances of 

this Review. In addition, we will review any additional information you feel is relevant that we 

have not requested. 

The Review commenced on June 29, 2009 and, unless extended by the Board in accordance with 

our rules, will terminate on August 12, 2009. Please note that at that time, under House 

Resolution 895 of the 110th Congress, as amended by House Resolution 5 of the 111th Congress, 

and OCE Rule 7, the Board may draw a negative inference from any refusal to cooperate and 

may include a statement to that effect in any referral to the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct. 

Leo J. Wise, Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

1017 Longworth House Office Building 

(202) 225-9739 

(202) 226-0997 fax 

David Skaggs, Chair Porter Goss, Co-Chair 

Yvonne Burke Jay Eagen 

Karan English William Frenzel 

Allison Hayward Abner Mikva 

09-9030_0031

57
If you have any questions regarding this request or require any assistance in the production of the 

information requested, please do not hesitate to contact Omar Ashmawy, Investigative Counsel, 

at (202) 225-9739 or omar.ashmawy@mail.house.gov. 

Very respectfully, 

Leo Wise 

Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

09-9030_0032

58
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

Please sign the following and return to the OCE by facsimile at (202) 226-0997. 

I hereby acknowledge receipt of a Request for Information in Review No. 9030. By so signing, I 

merely acknowledge receipt of this document. 

Member or Designee’s Signature: __________________________________________________

Member or Designee’s Name:____________________________________________________ 

Date: ____________________________ 

09-9030_0033

59
60
EXHIBIT 12 

09-9030_0034

61
62
63