Opinion ID: 2681015
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Taxpayer standing & procurement claims: is a

Text: private right of action required for taxpayer suits? The authority for taxpayer suits in this State stems from the common law, see Gill, 31 Md. at 395, and is not governed generally by statute. 51 In this sense, the traditional understanding of the authority for a taxpayer suit is described as follows: The taxpayer litigant is often likened to a “private attorney general” because he is essentially performing the function of an attorney general by suing to enforce the laws. The taxpayer does not assert a private cause of action but, instead, that of his government. Therefore, a taxpayers’ suit is essentially a “derivative proceeding” akin to a corporate shareholders’ suit. The public corporation, like its private counterpart, has the same right of action, but presumably it has neglected to pursue it. Taxpayers are injured by unlawful acts or omissions of governmental officials because taxpayers are the constituents of government and they contribute the tax funds that are misused. Recoveries in taxpayers’ suits run directly to the government and indirectly to the taxpayers in the form of tax dollar savings and good government. A trust theory, as well as a shareholders' derivative analogy, has also been used to justify the taxpayers' suit. By this rationale, the public officer is the trustee who cares for the property of the taxpayer, the cestui que trust. As trustee, the public officer or agency vested with control of public property has a duty to protect the interest of the equitable owners and to act for their benefit. Comment, Taxpayers’ Actions: Public Invocation of the Judiciary, 13 Wake Forest L. Rev. 397, 397-98 (1977) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). Because of this nature of the suit, courts often require that the complainant not have an adequate remedy at law. See id., at 398 n.11. Where the complainant does not have an adequate remedy at law, 51 Other states have adopted statutes granting taxpayers standing to sue. 79 however, the common law demands that we permit the suit unless the General Assembly has pre-empted this common law right. In this case, the State Agencies and Developers argue that Appellees, even though taxpayers, cannot bring this suit because the Procurement Code does not provide them a private right of action (and, as discussed above, Appellees have no right to the statutory administrative remedies). Much of their argument on this issue focuses on alleging that the Procurement Code does not authorize or permit private causes of action. Determining whether the Procurement Code permits private causes of action is irrelevant in this case, however, because, as discussed above, taxpayer suits do not require private causes of action. Accordingly, the State Agencies’ arguments regarding whether the Procurement Code implies a private right of action are irrelevant. 52 Most illustrative of the irrelevancy of much of their argument against taxpayer standing is the fact that none of the cases cited by the State Agencies involved standing based on taxpayer suits. Instead, those cases involve private litigants alleging an injury caused by a violation of a statute and seeking a remedy provided under that statute. Moreover, the State Agencies cited in their initial brief also Baker v. Montgomery Cnty., 427 Md. 691, 716, 50 A.3d 1112, 1126-27 (2012), as support for their proposition that “[l]ast year, this Court left open the question whether a private right of action is 52 This analysis would be different if Appellees’ claims were based in the Procurement Code and sought a remedy provided in the Procurement Code. Here, however, because Appellees bring suit based upon taxpayer standing and seek relief as such, we do not need to entertain arguments regarding whether a private right of action exists. 80 necessary to seek injunctive or declaratory relief, at least where there is taxpayer standing;” and cited 1000 Friends of Md. v. Ehrlich, 170 Md. App. 538, 548, cert. denied, 396 Md. 12 (2006) and Sugarloaf Citizens Ass’n, Inc. v. Gudis, 78 Md. App. 550, 554 A.2d 434 (1989), aff'd, 319 Md. 558, 573 A.2d 1325 (1990), for the proposition that “[t]he Court of Special Appeals already has resolved this question, demanding that plaintiffs seeking a declaration that a Maryland statute was violated or an injunction against future violations of the statute have a private right of action under that statute.” The State Agencies misinterpreted woefully these cases: 1000 Friends of Maryland never mentioned taxpayer standing, 53 and Baker and Sugarloaf, although discussing the doctrine, did not lend support to the State Agencies’ assertions. First, Baker’s analysis of why the petitioners lacked standing supports, albeit not explicitly, the fact that taxpayer standing is an alternative to possessing a private right of action. In that case, the litigation focused on whether a private cause of action existed under the relevant statute. After the Court concluded that the relevant statute did not provide the petitioners with a private cause of action, and even though petitioners did not 53 In that case, private complainants brought a suit challenging the actions of the BPW in approving for State funding a proposed expansion of a road. The complainants “sought mandamus, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief based on their contention that the Board was obligated to issue findings of fact to support its decision.” 1000 Friends of Md., 170 Md. App. at 547, 907 A.2d at 871 (emphasis added). The intermediate appellate court found that the relevant statute precluded private causes of action generally, including declaratory judgment and injunctive relief claims. Id., 170 Md. App. at 548, 907 A.2d at 871. The court noted, however, that the statutory preclusion of private causes of action did not preclude appellants from seeking a writ of mandamus. Id. Ultimately, however, the court concluded that appellants’ mandamus claim failed otherwise as a matter of law. 1000 Friends of Md., 170 Md. App. at 550-51, 907 A.2d at 873. 81 allege taxpayer standing, the Court discussed taxpayer standing in the final paragraph of the opinion. The Court pointed out that Petitioners maintained steadfastly, albeit quixotically, in the Court of Special Appeals that they were not asserting standing as taxpayers, relying instead solely on their claimed private cause of action theory. Baker, 201 Md.App. at 679 n. 27, 30 A.3d at 289 n. 27. Petitioners acknowledged also that some of them are neither Maryland residents nor Maryland taxpayers. Baker, 427 Md. at 716, 50 A.3d at 1126 (emphasis added). Immediately thereafter, the Court repeated the basic rule for taxpayer standing doctrine: “‘A taxpayer may invoke the aid of a court of equity to restrain the action of a public official or an administrative agency when such action is illegal or ultra vires, and may injuriously affect the taxpayer’s rights and property.’” Id. (quoting Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 339, 329 A.2d at 684). Then, the Court concluded that “[i]n the face of these concessions and our opinion as to the private cause of action issue, we conclude that Petitioners have no basis to obtain equitable or declaratory relief.” Id. Even if Baker’s analysis does not support the conclusion that taxpayer standing is an alternative to a private cause of action, the Baker Court made it explicitly clear that it “d[id] not decide whether Petitioners had standing, on a basis other than an implied private cause of action under Transportation Article § 21–809, to seek a declaration that Respondents' contracts with ACS violate § 21–809(j) or to an injunction against Respondents' enforcement of their speed monitoring systems.” Baker, 427 Md. at 716 n.19, 50 A.3d at 1126 n.19. Next, Sugarloaf, cited extensively by the State Agencies, rather than supporting the State Agencies’ arguments, demonstrates the importance of the particular basis of the 82 complainant’s alleged standing. In Sugarloaf, the Sugarloaf Citizens Association and two private individuals (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Sugarloaf”) filed an amended complaint against the County Council of Montgomery County and Michael Gudis, an individual County Council member. The amended complaint alleged that a County Council resolution, promulgated to implement an earlier 4-3 vote of the County Council members, should be rendered void under section 19A-22(b) of the Montgomery County Code. According to Sugarloaf, Gudis had a conflict of interest in the vote and, thus, his vote violated section 19A-7 of the Montgomery County Code. In the amended complaint, appellants stated that “the plaintiffs herein are acting in the best interests of the public and the citizens of Montgomery County . . . by seeking the remedy provided by Section 19A-22(b)” and, according to the Court of Special Appeals, quoted extensively from the Montgomery County Public Ethics Law. Sugarloaf, 78 Md. App. at 556 n.2, 554 A.2d at 436 n.2. The Circuit Court granted the County Council and Gudis’s Motion to Dismiss. On appeal, in its reply brief, Sugarloaf “stated that the basis for their complaint was their common law right as taxpayers ‘to challenge legislative action that is procedurally or otherwise defective.’” Id. The intermediate appellate court disagreed. The court pointed out that “[t]he sole relief requested, other than a general request for ‘such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper,’ is to void the action taken by the Council, consistent with the remedy provided by Section 19A-22(b).” Id. Thus, the court found that it was clear that “[t]he violation complained of and the relief requested are found within the ethics law provisions.” Id. The court acknowledged that 83 Sugarloaf “may have otherwise possessed standing to invalidate alleged legislative action,” such as through the common law taxpayer doctrine, “their standing, as evidenced by their amended complaint, is based upon the Montgomery County Public Ethics Law.” Id. As such, the intermediate appellate court went on to analyze whether the Montgomery County Public Ethics Law, upon which Sugarloaf’s alleged standing was based, provided either an explicit or implicit private cause of action, and found that it did not. The court noted, however, that it did not view Sugarloaf’s complaints as based on taxpayer standing: At common law a taxpayer had standing to bring a declaratory judgment action for a judicial declaration that a statute was void due to a conflict of interest by one voting for its enactment. See Beshore v. Town of Bel Air, 237 Md. 398, 206 A.2d 678 (1965). We need not decide whether the statute pre-empts any common law remedy that appellants may have possessed to attack Resolution 11-382. Appellants do not seek declaratory relief; they rely on the mechanism provided within § 19A-22(b) to render the resolution void. Sugarloaf, 78 Md. App. at 560, 554 A.2d at 439. In the present case, Appellees do not rely on the provisions of the Procurement Code to confer standing. Rather, they assert standing as taxpayers (as well as separately property owners) and they seek relief granted traditionally to taxpayers: declaratory relief that the governmental action is illegal and ultra vires and that the action thus taken should be voided; and injunctive relief to preclude further illegal and ultra vires governmental actions that will cause pecuniary harm to their taxes. Because taxpayer 84 suits in this State do not require also a separate private right of action, 54 such an inquiry is irrelevant in our analysis. Rather, the proper question (if any) is whether the Procurement Code pre-empted the common law right for taxpayers to bring such suits. Neither party addressed this issue, however. Because neither party argued whether the Procurement Code pre-empted the common law right of taxpayer suits, which has a long history in this State of allowing challenges of governmental procurements, we do not address this question today and, for now, assume that the common law right to taxpayer suits remains intact. ii. The necessary party plaintiffs for taxpayer standing doctrine. “The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the court . . . .” Pollokoff v. Maryland Nat. Bank, 288 Md. 485, 497, 418 A.2d 1201, 1208 (1980) (citing Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1952, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968)). For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, the conceptual basis of the doctrine is that the action is brought by complainants, as taxpayers and on behalf of all other similarly situated taxpayers. In other words, under the taxpayer standing doctrine, a complainant’s standing rests upon the theoretical 54 We acknowledge that dicta in a footnote in 120 West Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore, 426 Md. 14, 43 A.3d 355 (2012) (“Superblock III”), could be read reasonably to suggest that complainants asserting the taxpayer standing doctrine must also have a cause of action, such as a statutory private right of action. See id., 426 Md. at 28 n.13, 43 A.3d at 365 n.13 (stating that 120 West Fayette is “categorically barred from alleging a violation of § 5A-326(a)(2)” because that statute “explicitly prohibits private causes of action for a State unit’s non-compliance with the Trust’s review, consultation and cooperation on historic preservation projects”). That dicta is contradictory to prior case law, such as Schley v. Lee, 106 Md. 390, 403-05, 67 A. 252, 257-58 (1907). 85 concept that the action is brought not as an individual action, but rather as a class action by a taxpayer on behalf of other similarly situated taxpayers. To establish eligibility to bring a suit under the taxpayer standing doctrine, the case law establishes that the complainant must allege two things: (1) that the complainant is a taxpayer and (2) that the suit is brought, either expressly or implicitly, on behalf of all other taxpayers. See, e.g., Holt v. Moxley, 157 Md. 619, 622-26, 147 A. 596, 597-99 (1929). Where a complainant fails to allege such a basis adequately, this Court has refused repeatedly to address taxpayer standing as a basis to maintain suit. See, e.g., Baker, 427 Md. at 716, 50 A.3d at 1126-27 (declining to address the issue of taxpayer standing doctrine after the “[p]etitioners maintained steadfastly, albeit quixtocially . . . that they were not asserting standing as taxpayers, relying instead solely on their claimed private cause of action theory”); Kendall, 431 Md. at 607-08, 66 A.3d at 694 (refusing to address taxpayer standing doctrine because petitioners did not assert taxpayer standing and, instead, asserted that “the ability to enforce the right to referendum in the Charter should not be restricted to persons with specially affected property rights or taxpayers who may suffer pecuniary harm.”); Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., 205 Md. App. 636, 689 n.30, 46 A.3d 473, 505 n.30 (2012) (declining to consider appellants’ “taxpayer standing” argument which was mentioned on appeal, but not argued before the circuit court as a basis for conferring standing). Thus, we determine whether Appellees alleged sufficiently here that they were taxpayers and that they brought the action pursuant to equitable grounds, under the taxpayer standing doctrine, on behalf of other taxpayers. 86 First, we address the requirement that, for taxpayer standing to exist, the complainant must allege sufficient facts to prove that he or she or it is, in fact, a taxpayer. 55 In this case, the State Agencies argue that Appellees, as “pass-through” business entities, are not actual taxpayers. In a footnote of their initial brief, the State Agencies aver that, because “all of the original plaintiffs are either limited liability companies or limited partnerships, which are ‘pass-through’ tax entities,” Appellees failed to allege taxpayer status sufficient to be eligible for the application of the taxpayer doctrine. 56 (Emphasis added). In a footnote of their Reply Brief, they averred again (but more broadly to include all plaintiffs) that “the plaintiffs are not taxpayers. Each of them is either a limited liability company or a limited partnership, and those entities do not pay Maryland income taxes as a matter of law.” Appellees retort that the State Agencies failed to preserve their argument that Appellees are not taxpayers because they did not advance that argument in the Circuit Court. Consequently, we should dismiss the argument because, if the State Agencies had 55 For purposes of clarity, we consider here the status of taxpayers generally. A later subsection of this opinion discusses the nexus requirement that, unless met, the mere status as a taxpayer (of any tax) is not sufficient. In order to meet the nexus necessary for the injury requirement, a plaintiff must prove that the taxpayer pays a tax, which will be increased most likely by the alleged ultra vires or illegal municipal act. 56 In support of this assertion, the State Agencies rely on Baltimore Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 690 n.2, 975 A.2d 271, 274 n.2 (2008), as “noting benefits of pass-through taxation for LLCs and partnerships.” Footnote two in Baltimore Street Builders relies on the United States Internal Revenue Service web site’s definition of a Limited Liability Company (which is not specific to Maryland tax law). This definition stated that LLCs enjoy “the benefit of pass-through taxation.” Id. The footnote did not explain what these benefits were and did not consider expressly the nature of limited partnerships. 87 raised properly this issue in the Circuit Court, Appellees would have had an opportunity to present evidence that they were, in fact, taxpayers. Moreover, according to Appellees, the State Agencies’ argument lacks any merit because they are taxpayers in Maryland. As a preliminary matter, we address the non-preservation contention. “Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.” Md. Rule 8-131(a). This general rule is appropriate, particularly for cases in which both parties were not given the opportunity to produce relevant evidence in the trial court that might have rebutted the tardy argument. Appellees believe this case falls into that category. Although we might agree that this case falls in that category generally, we note also the exception that “the Court may decide such an [unpreserved] issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal” is applicable to this case. Id. The record is adequate to those ends for our conclusion in this case (in which we may resolve the matter without reaching the merits of the State Agencies’ argument that the limited liability entities may not claim taxpayer standing). 57 Thus, we exercise our discretion to resolve the point. 57 Were the only issue whether limited liability entities are able to claim taxpayer standing, we would agree likely with Appellees that the record was insufficient to address this issue because Appellees would not have had the opportunity to set forth any evidence or arguments to the contrary in the trial court. Thus, we use our discretion to resolve the matter in this case, while saving the substantive issue for another day when we are provided with a better record. 88 For purposes of taxpayer standing doctrine, “[i]t is a long established rule that ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action or take an appeal, we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.’” Bd. of Sup'rs of Elections v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220, 233 n.7, 608 A.2d 1222, 1228 n.7 (1992) (quoting Bd. of License Comm’rs v. Haberlin, 320 Md. 399, 404, 578 A.2d 215, 217 (1990)) (citations omitted) (internal bracket omitted); see also Long Green Valley Ass’n, 205 Md. App. at 652, 46 A.3d at 483; Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 54, 949 A.2d 639, 645-46 (2008); Dorsey v. Bethel A.M.E. Church, 375 Md. 59, 67, 825 A.2d 388, 392 n.1 (2003). Although the Original Complaint listed fifteen businesses as plaintiffs, all of which were limited partnerships or limited liability corporations (and, therefore, “pass-through” entities), 58 the Amended Complaint added 58 Companies are subject generally to federal and state income tax on their taxable income. A “pass-through” entity, however, is not a separate taxable entity. “Instead, its income, loss, deductions, and credits are passed through to its stockholders.” Charles A. Borek, Borek’s Maryland Business Planning Guidebook § 2-13 (2009). Thus, “pass through” refers to a mechanism by which [i]f certain conditions are satisfied, dividends paid to shareholders of regulated investment companies and real estate investment trusts are deductible in computing investment company taxable income . . . . Through this mechanism, no corporate tax will generally be imposed on these entities if all of their earnings are properly distributed to shareholders. Joseph H. Langhirt, Corporate Income Tax, in 1 Maryland Taxes § 4-5 (Robert A. Rombro et al. eds., 4th ed. 2005 & Supp. 2008) (footnote omitted). In other words, “the income of a . . . corporation is deemed to ‘pass through’ to the shareholders who are then directly taxed on that income” in the same manner as other income. Maryland State Comptroller of Treasury v. Wynne, 431 Md. 147, 154, 64 A.3d 453, 456-67 (2013). (Continued…) 89 David & Dad’s Inc. and the Second Amendment by Interlineation added DaMimmo’s Italian Restaurant; 59 Sabatinos, Incorporated; Chiapparelli’s Inc.; Vaccaro’s Italian Pastry Shop, Inc.; Bonnie’s Peanut Shoppe, Inc.; Davis and Davis, Inc., d/b/a Flowers by Gina D.; and Caesar’s Den, Inc., to the named Plaintiffs in this suit. These eight companies are general Maryland corporations. None are a limited partnership or a limited liability corporation and, therefore, we may assume for purposes of this appeal that they are not “pass-through” entities. 60 Because “the filing of an amended complaint supercedes the (…continued) In Maryland, a “pass-through entity” is defined as “(i) an S corporation; (ii) a partnership; (iii) a limited liability company that is not taxed as a corporation under this title; or (iv) a business trust or statutory trust that is not taxed as a corporation under this title.” Md. Code (1988, 2010 Repl. Vol.), Tax-General Art., § 10-102.1(a)(7). 59 DaMimmo’s Italian Restaurant, although not a party to this appeal, was one of the listed Plaintiffs to the suit at the time the Circuit Court ruled on the State Agencies’ Motions to Dismiss and, thus, is part of our review whether that ruling was legally correct. Regardless of DaMimmo’s Italian Restaurant’s inclusion, though, Appellees satisfy the requirements for eligibility to bring taxpayer suit based solely on the inclusion of at least one presumed taxpaying corporation. 60 We acknowledge that limited liability corporations and limited partnerships are not the only business entities that may receive “pass-through” tax treatments in this State. These eight corporations, if they were sub-chapter S corporations, would be classified as “pass-through” business entities with the same “pass-through” tax benefits of limited liability corporations and limited partnerships. We do not entertain, however, the possibility that these eight corporations may be a “pass-through” entity for purposes of this analysis. The State Agencies failed to mention that even one Plaintiff was neither a limited liability corporation nor a limited partnership and, moreover, failed to mention that sub-chapter S Corporations qualify as “pass-through” business entities as well in either its initial or reply brief. Although we could search the judicially-noticeable public records theoretically for this information (because the taxable status of a company is information available publicly), we find that such over-reaching is not proper for this Court. The State Agencies had the opportunity to present this evidence, if they so desired, at the trial court (but they did not) and, again, to this Court (but they did not). (Continued…) 90 initial complaint, rendering the amended complaint the operative complaint,” Gonzales v. Boas, 162 Md. App. 344, 355, 874 A.2d 491, 497 (2005), we conclude that the State Agencies’ argument, relying on the type of “pass-through” business entities listed as Plaintiffs in the Original Complaint, without recognizing that not all of the parties listed in the operative Amended Complaint fell within those types, has no merit. 61 Next, we consider whether Appellees alleged taxpayer standing as a basis for bringing their complaint, either implicitly or explicitly. We do so not in response to any of the parties’ arguments. Rather, we analyze this requirement to illustrate the importance of the distinction between an individual’s complaint and a derivative complaint brought on behalf of all other taxpayers similarly situated. This distinction, found in the nature of the pleadings’ description of the party plaintiffs, becomes important in our subsequent analysis of the injury sufficient for the taxpayer standing doctrine to apply in a given case. In this case, Appellees did not plead explicitly in either the Original or Amended Complaint that they brought their claims on behalf of other, unnamed taxpayers similarly situated. Rather, Appellees’ allegations claimed merely that they are harmed as taxpayers of the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore. See Amended Complaint, at ¶ 35. Where a complainant brings a claim as a taxpayer, but not explicitly as a class (…continued) 61 We reiterate that we do not reach the merits of the argument that pass-through entities may not allege taxpayer standing doctrine, but rather save that question for another day. 91 representative of other taxpayers as well, the question arises whether the suit is private in nature (and, thus, the doctrine of taxpayer standing would not confer standing). The importance of the nature of the complaint is revealed by our earliest cases addressing the taxpayer standing doctrine. In Kelly v. City of Baltimore, 53 Md. 134 (1880), a disappointed bidder, allegedly the low bidder which should have been granted the contract, sought an injunction voiding the municipal contract, awarded allegedly as a result of a fraudulent bid-rigging conspiracy between the successful bidder and mid-level municipal contracting officers. 53 Md. at 136-39. The Court described the nature of the complaint filed as follows: The bill is filed by the complainants in their own right as copartners, and actually engaged in the business of printers and stationers, and as taxpayers of said city largely interested in the faithful and economical administration of the affairs of said city. It is not filed in behalf of themselves and others who may come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit. They do not make their fellow-citizens parties to the proceeding. No one except the persons immediately interested in the contract, and professing to be aggrieved by the award, unites in the complaint. It is therefore strictly speaking, a private bill. Kelly, 53 Md. at 136 (emphasis added). The importance of the private nature of the complaint was described further: Public wrongs, although involving private injuries, are not to be made the grounds of personal suits at law, or in equity, unless the complainant has sustained special damage, and in many instances, the private injury is merged in the public. In exceptional cases, where great principles or large public interests are involved, citizens or corporators may sue in behalf of themselves, and their fellow-citizens to arrest some projected violation of constitutional law or abuse of corporate authority. 92 Kelly, 53 Md. at 139; see also Kelly, 53 Md. at 140 (“‘It is certainly well settled that public wrongs cannot be redressed at the suit of individuals, who have no other interest in the matter than the rest of the public.’”) (quoting Gill, 31 Md. at 393). The Court explained that Gill sustained the taxpayers’ suit “only upon the principle that if such a remedy was denied citizens and property holders, residing within the limits of a municipality, would be liable to injury and damage from unauthorized and illegal acts of the corporation.” Id. Our predecessors emphasized, though, that “th[e] Court has not undertaken to declare that every abuse of a legal authority by a municipal corporation, to the prejudice of a tax-payer, is a ground for equitable interference to prevent injury.” Kelly, 53 Md. at 140. Instead, Gill was an “exceptional case” because the Court found that “‘it appears from the averments of the bill, that these complainants as tax-payers of the city, and others similarly situated, in whose behalf as well as their own, the bill is filed, constitute a class specially damaged by the alleged unlawful act of the corporation, in the alleged increase of the burden of taxation upon their property situated within the city.’” Id. (quoting Gill, 31 Md. at 394) (emphasis added). On that basis, the Court concluded that “‘[t]he complainants have, therefore, a special interest in the subjectmatter of the suit distinct from that of the general public.’” Id. (quoting Gill, 31 Md. at 394). The Kelly Court concluded that, in that case, “[t]he bill . . . presents no such claim to the exercise of the preventive power of the court.” 53 Md. at 142. Instead, “[r]educed to its elementary facts, it is a controversy between rival tradesmen for the custom of the 93 Mayor and City Council, in supplying the departments with stationery and printed matter.” Id. Thus, Kelly concluded that “[t]he public has no interest in this controversy. . . . To drag them in as complainants, is to make a mountain of a mole hill, and magnify the alleged injuries of private citizens, into a grave impeachment of public officers without sufficient foundation.” 53 Md. at 143 (emphasis added). Although Kelly exemplifies the importance of the nature of the complaint for purposes of analysis under the taxpayer standing doctrine (i.e., who the plaintiffs are in the complaint), the Court does not order any technical requirement that the plaintiff(s) plead explicitly that the suit is brought on behalf of other taxpayers similarly situated. We held in Holt that the requirement is that “the action must ‘either expressly or by necessary implication’ be on behalf of the taxpayers or property owners as a class.” Holt v. Moxley, 157 Md. 619, 625, 147 A. 596, 599 (1929) (quoting 1 Freeman on Judgments § 437 (5th ed. 1925)) (emphasis added). 62 62 In Holt v. Moxley, 157 Md. 619, 147 A. 596 (1929), the Court addressed a benefit assessment for street improvements in a municipality. In an earlier challenge to the assessment, a different taxpayer brought suit, as a taxpayer, but did not allege that he brought the suit on behalf of any other taxpayers, or anyone else for that matter. In the earlier case, the validity of the assessment legislation was sustained by the circuit court. In Holt, a second taxpayer challenged the same legislation in the same circuit court on the same grounds and sought the same relief denied in the earlier challenge. The dispositive question was whether Holt was precluded by res judicata from challenging the same legislation on the same grounds as in the earlier case. The Court found that the second taxpayer’s challenge was precluded by the first suit because the first suit was brought under the taxpayer standing doctrine and, thus, on behalf of all other taxpayers “by necessary implication.” In other words, because the first challenge was based on the taxpayer standing doctrine, which is an equitable doctrine, “[the Holt Court] applied the concept, traditional to equity practice, of virtual (Continued…) 94 Thus, even though Appellees did not allege specifically that they brought the suit on behalf of other taxpayers similarly situated, the doctrine may apply yet, if the action is, in fact, on behalf of the taxpayers as a class, by necessary implication from the nature of the alleged injury pleaded in the Amended Complaint. In other words, the allegations of the injury must apply to all taxpayers in the assumed class and not merely the plaintiffs as private complainants, in order for the taxpayer standing doctrine to apply. iii. A governmental action that is illegal or ultra vires. An additional requirement for the taxpayer standing doctrine to confer standing upon a plaintiff is that the complainant must be challenging an action by a public official that is asserted to be illegal or ultra vires. This requirement has been applied leniently and seems rather easy to meet, particularly in the context of reviewing a trial court’s (…continued) representation . . . .” See Gardner v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 320 Md. 63, 79, 576 A.2d 208, 216 (1990) (discussing Holt). The fact that the earlier case did not state explicitly it was brought on behalf of other taxpayers was not dispositive. Because “[t]he defendants . . . in the [earlier case] did not demur to the bill for want of the averment that it was brought on behalf of other interested taxpayers and property owners,” it was “a formality which we can consider waived by the only parties who could have objected.” Holt, 157 Md. at 625, 147 A. at 599. The rationale was that, if the defendant had demurred on the grounds that the bill was defective in this respect, the bill could have been amended. If amended, the “‘only effect [of such an amendment would be] to make the bill profess to be what in law it was, and what in point of fact it had been considered to be.’” Id., 157 Md. at 625, 147 A. at 598 (citations omitted). Under this reasoning, the Holt Court distinguished Kelly by noting that the plaintiffs in Kelly were disappointed bidders for a city contract and “the wrongs complained of were personal to the plaintiffs, concerned only with matters of administration in which the plaintiffs had no interest as taxpayers differing from those of the general public . . . .” Id. Thus, in that case, there was no “necessary implication” that the case was brought on behalf of other taxpayers. 95 denial of a motion to dismiss, as is the case here. We assume that the facts well-pleaded in Appellees’ Amended Complaint are true and, therefore, we must assume further that the complained-of State officials’ actions were, in fact, ultra vires. See, e.g., RRC Ne., LLC, 413 Md. at 643-44, 994 A.2d at 433-34. That Appellees’ allegations may be unproven at trial or Appellants’ evidence found more credible or persuasive (i.e., that the State Center Project and its formative documents were proper under the relevant state laws and regulations) does not figure in the analysis. See Funk v. Mullan Contracting Co., 197 Md. 192, 196, 78 A.2d 632, 635 (1951) (stating that the taxpayer’s right “to invoke the aid of a court of equity to restrain the action of an administrative agency of the State, when such action is illegal and may injuriously affect the taxpayer's rights or his property . . . does not depend upon the result; that is, he may be wrong in his contention, but nevertheless he has the right to invoke the aid of the courts to make it”). So long as the plaintiffs allege, in good faith, an ultra vires or illegal act by the State or one of its officers, as was done here, such allegations are sufficient to confer taxpayer standing doctrine, so as to entitle the plaintiff to get its foot in the courthouse door and receive potentially a merits hearing (all other things being equal) and determination whether the acts were, in fact, illegal or ultra vires. Therefore, we conclude that Appellees met this requirement through the allegations of their Amended Complaint. iv. Specific Injury Sufficient. It is well-settled that the taxpayer must allege also a special interest distinct from the general public. See, e.g., Harlan v. Employers' Ass'n of Maryland, 162 Md. 124, 131, 96 159 A. 267, 270 (1932) (citing Gill, 31 Md. at 375). This requirement “has been interpreted repeatedly to require a showing that the action being challenged results in a pecuniary loss or an increase in taxes.” Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 339, 329 A.2d at 684 (citations omitted). 63 As the inaugural case explained: It is certainly well settled that public wrongs cannot be redressed at the suit of individuals, who have no other interest in the matter than the rest of the public. Thus an individual cannot maintain a bill of injunction to prevent a public nuisance, unless he suffers thereby some special damage; and the principle governing cases of that kind has been supposed to be applicable to the present case. But it appears from the averments of the bill, that these complainants, as taxpayers of the city, and others similarly situated, in whose behalf as well as their own the bill is filed, constitute a class specially damaged by the alleged unlawful act of the corporation, in the alleged increase of the burden of taxation upon their property situated within the city. The complainants have therefore a special interest in the subject-matter of the suit, distinct from that of the general public. Gill, 31 Md. at 394 (emphasis added). In other words, the special interest that is distinct from the general public is the increased burden of taxation. 64 63 Language in some of our cases contributes to some confusion on this point. See, e.g., Citizens Comm. of Anne Arundel Cnty., Inc. v. Cnty. Comm'rs, 233 Md. 398, 404, 197 A.2d 108, 112 (1964) (“In any event it is clear that the loss or damage the complaining taxpayers claim to have sustained has likewise been proportionately suffered by all other taxpayers in the county.”). Such dicta should not be read to unsettle the wellsettled nature of the principles discussed here and in the other cases mentioned in this opinion. 64 A common point of apparent confusion arises from prior statements and suggestions by this Court that the “restrictions on standing [regarding a special interest distinct from the general public] do not necessarily apply to a taxpayer” because “[t]his Court has held that a person’s or an organization’s status as a taxpayer entitles it to standing when the challenged statute, regulation, or government action increases or threatens to increase the taxpayer’s tax burden.” Med. Waste Assocs. v. Maryland Waste Coal, Inc., 327 Md. 596, 613 n.10, 612 A.2d 241, 250 n.10 (1992) (citations omitted). This phrasing is somewhat misleading because the requirements for a special interest (Continued…) 97 This Court has clarified this special interest requirement many times since Gill. For example, in Ruark v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 37, 157 Md. 576, 146 A. 797 (1929), we clarified the rule, explaining the requirement as follows: The special damage which the taxpayer of the political division sustains in a public wrong is the prospective pecuniary loss incident to the increase in the amount of taxes he will be constrained to pay by reason of the illegal or ultra vires act of the municipality or other political unit. Hence the taxpayer's interest in the subject matter is not general, but special only, because of the future individual monetary burden cast upon him or his property. The subsequent decisions have consistently maintained the rule, and have sanctioned the relief by injunction whenever it appeared that the taxpayer complaining would sustain a pecuniary loss, distinct from that of the general public, by reason of increased taxes, whether such increase resulted from an ultra vires, illegal, or void order, contract, ordinance, or statute in reference to an assessment of property, or to the levy, collection, expenditure, appropriation, or diversion of public taxes. Id., 157 Md. at 589-90, 146 A. at 802-03 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). See also Harlan, 162 Md. at 131, 159 A. at 270 (“If it appears that the wrong complained of may result in imposing an additional burden on the taxpayer, then he, with others similarly situated, constitute a class entitled to relief, and courts of equity will take cognizance of their complaint.”) (citing Gill, 31 Md. at 375). This requirement is the foundation of the taxpayer standing doctrine. As the Supreme Court of Alabama explained: (…continued) distinct from the general public apply still in this doctrine. Thus, the characterization of the injury is essential to the analysis. 98 [T]he right of a taxpayer to sue is based upon the taxpayer's equitable ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency which would be caused by the misappropriation. Broxton v. Siegelman, 861 So. 2d 376 (Ala. 2003) (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Taxpayers, like any plaintiffs, may not “‘restrain official acts upon the mere ground that they are ultra vires.’” Ruark, 157 Md. at 588, 146 A. at 802 (quoting Bauernschmidt v. Standard Oil Co., 153 Md. 647, 651, 139 A. 531, 533 (1927)). Rather, the ultra vires or illegal acts must cause a special damage to the taxpayer-complainant which differs from that impressed on the general public. See, e.g., Ruark, 157 Md. at 592-93, 146 A. at 804 (concluding that “these taxpayers will not sustain any special damage” because “their interest in the subject matter of the eight contracts is merely that of every resident of Baltimore”). 65 “[T]he taxpayer plaintiff is not required to allege facts which necessarily lead to the conclusion that taxes will be increased; rather the test is whether the taxpayer ‘reasonably may sustain a pecuniary loss or a tax increase’—‘whether there has been a showing of potential pecuniary damage.’” Inlet Assocs. v. Assateague House Condo. Ass’n, 313 Md. 413, 441, 545 A.2d 1296, 1310 (1988) (emphasis added in Inlet Assocs.) (quoting Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 344, 329 A.2d at 687). To confer taxpayer 65 The distinction between resident and taxpayer is significant. Remembering that distinction may contribute some clarity to the confusion. A party may be a resident of the State (and, thus, have a “general interest” in the State’s actions), but not be a taxpayer whose pecuniary interest would be affected by that action (and, thus, not have the requisite “special interest”). 99 standing upon a plaintiff, this Court requires, however, “a clear showing of [that] potential pecuniary damage” and of a nexus between that potential damage and the challenged act, Gordon v. City of Baltimore, 258 Md. 682, 687-88, 267 A.2d 98, 101 (1970); otherwise, the taxpayer would lack any injury upon which to base his, her, or its claim. These general requirements are reiterated in almost every taxpayer standing doctrine case. Beyond these general requirements, though, the cases fail to articulate further guidance. The cases, while helpful on a fact-specific, individual basis, remain disorganized as a whole and even appear haphazard, due to the apparent contradictions between some of the holdings. Thus, before we are able to determine whether Appellees’ allegations met the general requirements, we examine the facts from our prior cases and, to the extent possible, attempt to tease out general guiding principles that will help us determine whether the basic requirements for this doctrine are met here. In doing so, we divide our discussion of the injury into three broad subcategories: type of harm, nexus, and degree of harm. (1) What types of “harm” amount to a pecuniary loss? This Court has recognized repeatedly that taxpayers have the right to bring a lawsuit in this State to prevent waste or unlawful use of public property and funds. 66 See, 66 While some other states allow taxpayer challenges to virtually any governmental conduct, see, e.g., Joshua G. Urquhart, Disfavored Constitution, Passive Virtues? Linking State Constitutional Fiscal Limitations and Permissive Taxpayer Standing Doctrines, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 1263, 1282, 1282 n.122 (2012) (citing Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 246-47 (Colo. 2008); Smith v. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ., 295 S.E.2d 680, 683 (W. Va. (Continued…) 100 e.g., Hammond v. Lancaster, 194 Md. 462, 474-75, 71 A.2d 474, 479 (1950) (concluding that, because the appellees have an interest, as taxpayer, to prevent waste of public funds, the questions regarding the constitutionality of the challenged statute was properly before the Court of Appeals); Matthaei v. Housing Auth., 177 Md. 506, 510, 9 A.2d 835, 836 (1939) (“The proceeding [seeking an injunction against the erection of a housing project of the Housing Authority of Baltimore which allegedly transgressed statutory limits of the authority] is one on behalf of taxpayers who would be affected by diversion of state or city tax funds to wrong uses, or by exemption of properties from paying taxes like their own; and in this state the taxpayers may sue for an injunction.”); Hanlon v. Levin, 168 Md. 674, 681, 179 A. 286, 289 (1935) (concluding that the appellee had the right to attack the Board of Park Commissioners’ actions because “[h]e is a resident and taxpayer of Baltimore City and equity will at his instance enjoin the conveyance or diversion to unlawful use of municipal property or funds”). The question arises, however, what types of “harm” are sufficient to constitute “waste” so as to confer taxpayer standing upon a complainant. Generally, the Court has exhibited great leniency in its interpretation of “potential pecuniary loss.” See, e.g., Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Ass’n v. Kerngood, 171 Md. 426, 429, 189 A. 209, 210 (1937) (“The courts of the State will entertain (…continued) 1982); Greater Harbor 2000 v. City of Seattle, 937 P.2d 1082, 1090-91 (Wash. 1997); Susan L. Parsons, Comment, Taxpayers’ Suits: Standing Barriers & Pecuniary Restraints, 59 Temp. L.Q. 951, 951-52 (1986)), this State has adhered steadfastly to the requirement that the challenge must relate to fiscal conduct. 101 jurisdiction of suits by citizens and taxpayers for the writ of mandamus, or that of injunction, to correct unlawful action by municipal officers when the action may injuriously affect rights and property of the parties complaining. And according to past applications of the rule, the interest or injury which will support such a suit is broadly comprehensive.”) (emphasis added) (citing Gill, 31 Md. at 395; St. Mary's Industrial School v. Brown, 45 Md. 310, 326 (1876); Pumphrey v. Mayor of Baltimore, 47 Md. 145, 153, 28 A. 446, 450 (1877); Konig v. Baltimore, 128 Md. 465, 477-78, 97 A. 837, 841 (1916); Levering v. Williams, 134 Md. 48, 59, 106 A. 176, 179-80 (1919); Thomas v. Field, 143 Md. 128, 141, 122 A. 25, 30 (1923); Sun Cab Co. v. Cloud, 162 Md. 419, 427, 159 A. 922, 925 (1932); Jones v. Gordy, 169 Md. 173, 178, 180 A. 272, 275 (1935)). “[I]t is no longer an open question in this state that, if [a] statute is invalid and injurious to him, he has a clear right, as a taxpayer, to maintain this suit.” Dahler v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 133 Md. 644, 646, 106 A. 10, 11 (1919)) (citing Painter v. Mattfeldt, 119 Md. 466, 87 A. 413 (1913); Baltimore v. Keyser, 72 Md. 106, 19 A. 706 (1809)); see also id. (holding that the plaintiff enjoyed taxpayer standing doctrine status because, “[a]s [a] taxpayer [the plaintiff] is liable for the assessments and taxation for the general purposes of the act,” which created a suburban sanitary district); Graf v. Hiser, 144 Md. 418, 423, 125 A. 151, 153 (1924) (“The right of taxpayers to protect their interests by a suit in equity, for an injunction against taxation under an invalid or ineffective law, is not open to question.”). 102 Invalid statutes are not, however, the only types of harm that may be a foundation for taxpayer standing. For example, in James v. Anderson, 281 Md. 137, 377 A.2d 865 (1977), the Court held that the plaintiff’s pointing to an alleged “decrease in efficiency which would result from the alleged ultra vires acts” was “sufficient for a taxpayer of the county involved to maintain a suit.” 281 Md. at 142, 377 A.2d at 868. In that case, the plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that the law “preclude[d] the County Executive from using the bond proceeds for the construction of the new courthouse on a new site.” James, 281 Md. at 140, 377 A.2d at 867. The defendants countered that the plaintiff lacked taxpayer standing because “the expenditure planned by the County Executive would in fact be less than the expenditure required to renovate the old courthouse, and that, as such, the plaintiff had not alleged any special damages or pecuniary loss which would entitle him, as a taxpayer, to maintain the action.” Id. This Court disagreed. It noted that the plaintiff alleged “that it would be more efficient for the courts and their supporting agencies to operate in close proximity, as is called for in the renovation project.” James, 281 Md. at 140, 377 A.2d at 867. In other words, “[t]he plaintiff challenges, as ultra vires, the actions of a County Executive, and points to a claimed decrease in efficiency which would result from the alleged ultra vires acts.” James, 281 Md. at 142, 377 A.2d at 868. The Court held that “this is sufficient for a taxpayer of the county involved to maintain a suit.” Id. We have gone so far as to hold that a potential need to fend off charges of illegality may be sufficient to establish taxpayer standing. In Citizens Planning, we noted that “it is not illogical to expect that the county might incur some expense or loss, to the 103 detriment of taxpayers, including appellants, in an errort to fend off the charges of illegality.” Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 343, 329 A.2d at 687. We observed that “[s]uch potential losses alone may be sufficient to establish standing.” Id. (citing Castle Farms Dairy Stores v. Lexington Market Auth., 193 Md. 472, 482, 67 A.2d 490, 482 (1949)). 67 Sun Cab Co. v. Cloud, 162 Md. 419, 159 A. 922 (1932), exemplifies one of the most lenient interpretations of what may constitute a sufficient plea of potential pecuniary loss. 68 In Sun Cab Co., the Court held that the taxpayers, in a class suit, had sufficient monetary interest solely on the following grounds: 67 This case was decided on other grounds as well. Whether the potential need to fend off charges of illegality is sufficient, standing alone, to establish this requirement of taxpayer standing is left for another day. 68 One could argue that Green v. Garrett, 192 Md. 52, 59, 63 A.2d 326, 328 (1949), and Castle Farms Dairy Stores v. Lexington Market Authority, 193 Md. 472, 67 A.2d 490 (1949), are more lenient in not requiring taxpayers to show pecuniary or special loss. See, e.g., Gordon v. City of Baltimore, 258 Md. 682, 688, 267 A.2d 98, 101-02 (1970) (referring to Castle Farms Dairy Stores as “[p]erhaps the most liberal application of the [taxpayer standing doctrine] test”). In Citizens Committee, however, the Court distinguished these cases in a significant manner when it found that standing in these cases was not based on taxpayer basis alone, but rather rested heavily upon the bases of nuisance and property owner standing: In the Green case, the taxpayers were allowed to attack an ordinance under which the city made profits, but they were held to have standing because the contract of renting made under the ordinance created a nuisance which detrimentally affected the rights and property of the taxpayers. It is doubtful that the taxpayers would have had standing but for the nuisance. Certainly the case cannot be interpreted to mean that taxpayers do not have to show either a pecuniary or special loss, for in fact the taxpayers suffered a special loss as a result of the nuisance. At p. 59 of 192 Md., at p. 328 of 63 A.2d, it was said that ‘there is no doubt that as adjacent residents and property (Continued…) 104 If the subject-matter is at all within the cognizance of a court of equity, as we conclude it is, if that court may be resorted to for prevention of a popular vote which would be void because based upon insufficient petitions, then, according to the settled practice, taxpayers interested in avoiding the waste of funds derived from taxation which would be involved in conducting the void referendum may make application to the court for the remedy. Sun Cab Co., 162 Md. at 426, 159 A. at 925. (…continued) owners, the appellants have an interest in restraining conditions arising out of the contract, which constitute a special nuisance to them.’ [Emphasis supplied.] In the Castle Farms case, where the taxpayers' suit questioned the validity of an ordinance providing for the establishment of a new Lexington Market, it was said 193 Md. at p. 482, 67 A.2d at p. 493, that ‘[i]f the Act is unconstitutional the project is unlawful, and even though the City would not be obligated for the project [under the ordinance the City was not obligated for any expenses], it presumably would incur some expense or loss in extricating itself and its property. As taxpayers, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to sue to enjoin such an unlawful project.    As owners and claimants of rights in the market, they may also, in the same case, sue to protect their property rights.’ There, it had been argued that a loss to the city would constitute a pecuniary loss to the taxpayers. It had also been argued that the plaintiffs were stall holders in the old market and would be deprived of their property-a theory similar to the nuisance theory in the Green case. But, in the case at bar, there is no allegation or proof that the property rights of the taxpayers are adversely affected by the county gambling statutes. Therefore, both Green and Castle Farms are distinguishable in that neither a pecuniary nor special loss is shown to have accrued as the result of deprivation of property rights. Citizens Comm., 233 Md. at 403-04, 197 A.2d at 111 (alterations and emphasis in the original). Other cases decided since Citizens Committee have relied upon Green and Castle Farms Dairy as taxpayer standing doctrine cases. This confusion in whether they represent taxpayer or property owner standing analyses is yet another example of the convoluted approach to these doctrines fomenting greater confusion in some of the later cases. 105 Similarly, in Harlan v. Employers' Ass'n of Maryland, 162 Md. 124, 159 A. 267 (1932), the Court concluded, “the facts alleged on behalf of the taxpayers [are] sufficient to allow them to maintain this suit.” 162 Md. at 132, 159 A. at 270. The facts in that case were as follows: In the bill of complaint here demurred to it is charged “that the enforcement by the city of payment of the schedule of wages as set out in the above mentioned report of the committee will naturally increase the cost of municipal work above its present level, and the inevitable consequence of such increase will be an additional burden upon the taxpayers and property owners.” The report of the committee, filed as an exhibit to the bill, shows that the high and low figures were taken into consideration and a compromise schedule arranged, all of which is admitted by the demurrer to be true. Such action on the part of the city with regard to contracts for public work may also be inconsistent with the provisions of section 15 of the City Charter, article 4 of the Code of Public Local Laws, which requires contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, subject to the right to invite alternative bids. Harlan, 162 Md. at 131-32, 159 A. at 270. In the present case, the State Agencies argue that Appellees failed to allege any “harm” sufficient to confer taxpayer standing. According to the State Agencies, Appellees should have challenged the entire project, in order to allege taxpayer standing properly, because challenging only the formative contracts and the process by which the State conducted its search for a developer of the State Center project is improper for attainment of taxpayer standing. We find no merit in this contention. From our precedent, we are able to summarize that the issue is not what “type” of harm is sufficient necessarily, but rather a much more forgiving question of whether the type of harm is one that may affect the complainant’s taxes. To determine that, Appellees’ claims, framed as discrete challenges, are the proper focus of our analysis. 106 In analyzing Appellees’ challenges, we begin with those challenges alleging violations of the Procurement Law. See Amended Complaints’ Counts I, II, III, and VI. At the heart of all of these challenges are the competitive bidding requirements, which exist for the benefit of the taxpayers. See 120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Baltimore City, 413 Md. 309, 333, 341, 992 A.2d 459, 474, 479 (2010) (“Superblock II”) (noting that the purpose of the competitive bidding requirements is “‘to prevent favoritism and collusion’” as well as “to eliminate . . . government overspending” and thereby ensure that public works projects are procured at the lowest cost to taxpayers) (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Allender, 206 Md. 466, 475, 112 A.2d 455, 459 (1955)) (citing Bennett v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 484, 68 A. 14 (1907)); Hylton v. Mayor of Baltimore, 268 Md. 266, 277, 300 A.2d 656, 661 (1972) (“The general purpose of competitive bid requirements is ‘to obtain unrestricted competitive bidding for contracts . . . and thereby to safeguard public funds by preventing favoritism, collusion and extravagance.’”) (quoting Hanna v. Bd. of Educ., 200 Md. 49, 54, 87 A.2d 846, 848 (1952)). As this Court stated in Hylton, quoting McQuillin’s summary of the law of competitive bid requirements for contracts: “The provisions of statutes, charters and ordinances requiring competitive bidding in the letting of municipal contracts are for the purpose of inviting competition, to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, and to secure the best work or supplies at the lowest price practicable, and they are enacted for the benefit of property holders and taxpayers, and not for the benefit or enrichment of bidders, and should be so construed and administered as to accomplish such purpose fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest. These provisions are strictly construed by the courts, and will not be extended beyond their reasonable purport. Such provisions must be read in the light of the reason for their enactment, lest they be applied where they were not intended to 107 operate and thus deny municipalities authority to deal with problems in a sensible, practical way. . . .” 268 Md. at 277-78, 87 A.2d at 661-62 (emphasis added) (quoting 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations 321-22, § 29.29 (3d. Ed. rev. vol. 1966)). See generally Livingston & Hoover, supra, at 1-12 (discussing, throughout their examination of Maryland Procurement Law, the underlying driving motivation for the law to benefit the taxpayers). Accordingly, in the context of taxpayer suits challenging governmental acts for failing allegedly to abide by competitive bidding requirements, this Court has conferred a particularly broad interpretation of “potential pecuniary loss.” See, e.g., Mayor of Baltimore v. Keyser, 72 Md. 106, 19 A. 706; Bennett v. City of Baltimore, 106 Md. 484 (1907); Hanna, 200 Md. 49. Therefore, where it is alleged that the State or municipality fails to abide by the requirements for competitive bidding, we presume (at least for present purposes) that the taxpayers are injured directly in that they are responsible for the claimed extra expenses attendant to whatever other method was adopted. An important distinction exists, however, between a taxpayer’s challenge of a contract or statute as ultra vires, as discussed above, and that of a contract or statute as not being administered correctly. We explained this difference in Ruark: [T]here is a distinction drawn between the prevention of public officials from doing a primary act, which is ultra vires or unlawful, as the making of a contract, of an assessment of property, of a levy of taxes, or of an appropriation of funds; and the occurrence of secondary errors, irregularities, or criminal conduct in the course of the performance of a valid contract or of an authorized municipal function. The latter acts fall into a different category and, generally, do not justify the issuing of an injunction, since they are not of a fundamental character, and may be 108 controlled or compensated by other remedies, and because equity has no supervisory power over public corporations and their officers. Ruark, 157 Md. at 593, 146 A. at 804 (citations omitted). Although the distinction made in Ruark dealt with the equitable right to injunction, it also appears to apply with equal force to taxpayer standing to seek the injunction. We clarified this distinction (somewhat) in our recent decision in Superblock III, which precluded taxpayer standing where the complainants challenged the administration of a contract and distinguished Superblock I on the grounds that the complainants in the earlier iteration of the litigation were maintaining that the government failed to comply with an ordinance or statute. See Superblock III, 426 Md. at 27-29, 43 A.3d at 363-64. The rationale is partially that, at a certain point, the requirement that the ultra vires act result reasonably in a potential pecuniary loss is much more difficult to prove if there is merely an officer or unit administering a program. The reason this situation is more difficult is because where the action of a municipal corporation or administrative agency is within the scope of its authority, and does not affect the vested rights of liberty or property, the court will not review its exercise of discretion, unless such exercise is fraudulent or corrupt or such abuse of discretion as to amount to breach of trust. The courts assume the fitness of administrative officials who are familiar with the matter in dispute and informed by training and experience to pass upon the questions of fact presented to them. Therefore, the courts feel that they should not substitute their own judgments for the findings of administrative officials in the absence of unusual circumstances. Coddington v. Helbig, 195 Md. 330, 337, 73 A.2d 454, 456-57 (1950) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Similarly, in Hanna, we stated: 109 On a suit by a taxpayer, a court of equity will not review the exercise of discretion of an administrative agency, if it acts within the scope of its authority, unless its power is fraudulently or corruptly exercised; but the court will restrain an agency from entering into or performing a void or ultra vires contract or from acting fraudulently or so arbitrarily as to constitute a breach of trust . . . . Hanna, 200 Md. at 50, 87 A.2d at 847 (citations omitted). In that case, we held that the taxpayers had standing to challenge a contract awarded in violation of a statute requiring public works contract to be let to the lowest bidder. In contrast, in Coddington, several taxpayers sought to enjoin the Board of Commissioners of Garrett County from expending certain borrowed money for the construction of two high school buildings. The taxpayers argued that the Commissioners were authorized to borrow the money to build new schools and to improve and/or make additions to existing schools. The Commissioners planned, however, to use all of the borrowed money to build two new schools, leaving no money to make improvements to existing schools. The Court of Appeals found that this was “an administrative function to be exercised by the officials to whom the Legislature has delegated authority over the administration of the schools.” Coddington, 73 A.2d at 337, 73 A.2d at 457 (citations omitted). The Court reasoned, however, that “if there be an attempt to apply the funds to objects not embraced within the power granted, or to objects within the power, but in total disregard of essential conditions prescribed by the statute to make it lawful to appropriate the funds, a court of equity will interfere to restrain such action. . . . But so long as such body of public functionaries confine themselves within the limits of the power delegated, the court will not interfere with the exercise of their discretionary powers, or undertake to determine the question whether the act complained of be wise or unwise, good or bad.” 110 Coddington, 195 Md. at 337-38, 73 A.2d at 457 (quoting Wiley v. Bd. of School Comm’rs, 51 Md. 401, 404 (1879)). The Court concluded: In the instant case there is no allegation that the County Commissioners are acting fraudulently. The only question for decision, therefore, is whether the bill alleges such gross abuse of discretion as to amount to breach of trust. There is no doubt that the Commissioners have the authority to erect high school buildings in places other than the towns mentioned in the Act, for the Act gives them broad authority, subject only to the State Superintendent's approval, to build school buildings in any community or communities that need new buildings. Coddington, 195 Md. at 338, 73 A.2d at 457. 69 See also Montgomery Cnty. Comm’rs v. Henderson, 122 Md. 533, 536, 89 A. 858, 860 (1914) (“The question as to whether it appeared from the petition of the citizens and taxpayers of the district filed in the case that there was a general public demand for the ‘procurement and improvement’ of the road as stated by the statute was a matter left by the statute to the judgment and discretion of the county commissioners, and their action in this respect is not reviewable by this court.”). Thus, because challenges of “a secondary error” do not fall necessarily within the same category of the well-settled doctrine in this State that taxpayers may seek the aid of 69 A correlative principle is that, even where the administrative agency may act outside of its authority, if the claimant fails to allege how the ultra vires act would create an increase in taxes, then the claimant has not alleged sufficient facts to confer taxpayer standing. For example, in Superblock III, 120 West Fayette averred that it had taxpayer standing because it was a taxpayer and a governmental agent’s action was ultra vires and illegal allegedly. The alleged illegal action was the loss of a discretionary power to cooperate in decisions involving the demolition of buildings in a historical area. There was no alleged explanation, however, for how this would amount to a pecuniary loss for taxpayers. See generally Superblock III, 426 Md. at 27-29,43 A.3d at 363-64 (discussing lack of taxpayer standing in that case). 111 a court of equity to “prevent[] [] public officials from doing a primary act, which is ultra vires or unlawful, [such] as the making of a contract . . . ,” Ruark, 157 Md. at 593, 146 A. at 804, we must analyze Appellees’ individual challenges with this distinction in mind. With regard to Appellees’ claims involving violations of the Procurement Law, we conclude that their Amended Complaint does not fall prey to the same flaws as identified in Superblock III and other cases. Appellees alleged, throughout their Amended Complaint, that the State violated the Procurement Law by entering into the formative contracts for the Project other than through public bidding. This alone was sufficient (for pleading purposes) to meet this element of the requisite injury component of the taxpayer standing doctrine as to Appellees for those challenges. In contrast, Appellees’ challenge of the State Center’s TOD designation is, if error at all, a “secondary error” that is not subject to our review. 70 While the RFQ, MDA, and First Amendment envisioned a TOD designation, the State Agencies and the Developers did not designate the State Center as a TOD. Rather, the Secretary of MDOT and the Mayor of the City of Baltimore effected this designation. While the designation has implications on where certain tax incentives and benefits are directed, such tax implications are within the proper scope of the municipal corporation or administrative agency’s authority, “and does not affect the vested rights of liberty or property . . . .” Thus, as we explained in Coddington, the court will not review such an exercise of 70 This issue is not for our review also because Appellees chose not to pursue it on appeal. We point out this distinction for clarity in application of the law, however. 112 discretion, unless such exercise is fraudulent or corrupt, or such abuse of discretion rises to the level of a breach of trust. Because Appellees made no direct allegations of fraud or corruption, 71 if the TOD designation were before us on appeal, we would conclude that the TOD designation failed to impact taxpayers’ pecuniary interest in a primary way so as to confer taxpayer standing. Lastly, Appellees alleged that they were damaged by the presumed competition that the completed State Center would pose to their businesses. See, e.g., Amended Complaint, at ¶ 22 (“The relocation of State agencies from the CBD to State Center will cause the Commercial Property Owners and Retail Merchants [termed “Plaintiffs” in this opinion] loss of revenues, diminution of asset values and other economic harms, deprive Baltimore City of property tax revenues at levels now paid by the [Plaintiffs] and further the flight and blight in the CBD. This constitutes an imminent harm to the [Plaintiffs] caused by the ultra vires actions of the State agencies.”) While such allegations do not detract from our finding that other allegations were sufficient to satisfy this element, these allegations of competition do not fit within the purview of taxpayer standing injuries and, thus, for our analysis, we disregard them entirely. Those harms are individual, private harms that do not affect the relevant class of taxpayers. As the 71 Their suggestion that “[t]he Project was designated as a TOD only after the State was made aware of potential litigation through discussions with property owners who were attempting to resolve the dispute prior to instituting litigation,” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 216, is not sufficient to raise genuine concerns of fraud or corruption. Furthermore, their suggestion that the designation of the State Center as a TOD is “arbitrary and capricious,” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 220, lacks any support as well. 113 Plaintiffs stated correctly in their Amended Complaint, these allegations of harm arising from the increased competition “constitutes an imminent harm to the Commercial Property Owners and Retail Merchants . . . .” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 22 (emphasis added). (2) Nexus Perhaps the most frequent stumbling block for a taxpayer to bring a suit under the doctrine is that the challenged act must affect potentially a tax that the taxpayer-plaintiff pays, i.e., this nexus must be alleged sufficiently. A review of the cases reveals that the taxpayer must be asserting a challenge and seeking a remedy that, if granted, would alleviate the tax burden on that individual and others; 72 otherwise, standing does not exist. The corollary to this requirement is also that taxpayers may challenge only certain 72 That the taxpayers may have an ulterior motivation (beyond the altruistic desire to ensure that government behaves correctly and spends taxpayers’ money legally and prudently) for bringing the suit does not matter to the analysis. Packard v. Haynes, 94 Md. 233, 243, 51 A. 32, 36 (1902) (holding that, where the plaintiff, as taxpayer, had a clear legal right to enforce, “the motives that actuated the bringing of the suit were immaterial” and, thus, “the allegation of the want of good faith in the plaintiff in bringing the suit . . . was immaterial”); see also Castle Farms Dairy Stores v. Lexington Mkt. Auth., 193 Md. 472, 482, 67 A.2d 490, 493 (1949) (“As owners and claimants of rights in the market, they may also, in the same case, sue to protect their property rights. The conflict between any rights of plaintiffs in the market and their interests as taxpayers shows the artificial character of this suit, but does not bar it.”) (internal citation omitted). In fact, scholars recognize that ulterior, non-altruistic motivations underlie most taxpayer suits and yet serve as the impetus for checking improper governmental actions. See, e.g., Note, Taxpayers' Suits: A Survey and Summary, 69 Yale L.J. 895, 914 (1960) (recognizing that “the theory of taxpayer litigation is employment of private motivations for public benefit”). Without the ulterior motivations, the potential gain from a taxpayer suit, which is often very small when divided among all taxpayers, would serve rarely as an impetus for a taxpayer suit. 114 statutes. In viewing other areas of law, we have not permitted taxpayers to enforce any statute unless it affects the taxpayers’ individual tax burden. See, e.g., Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Ass'n v. Kerngood, 171 Md. 426, 429, 189 A. 209, 209-10 (1937) (discussed more in-depth infra p. 116 and note 74). Many cases emphasize that standing cannot exist if the remedy sought would not decrease the taxpayer’s monetary burden. For example, in Citizens Committee of Anne Arundel County, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, 233 Md. 398, 197 A.2d 108 (1964), the Court held that the taxpayer did not prove or show that he had a sufficient interest to test the constitutionality or validity of the pertinent statute because the remedy sought, if granted, would not decrease the taxpayer’s burden. 233 Md. at 405, 197 A.2d at 112. In that case, a group of individual county residents, citizens, taxpayers and an incorporated citizens committee challenged the constitutionality and validity of local laws authorizing the operation of gambling devices and activities, and sought injunctive relief. The Court noted that, because the revenues from the licensing program exceeded the cost of its administration by more than $500,000, “[i]t would seem obvious therefore that the plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary loss due to the fact that some of the administration expenses were paid out of general public funds.” Citizens Comm., 233 Md. at 404, 197 A.2d at 111. Moreover, “the taxpayers would be damaged by a discontinuance of the program rather than a continuance of it.” 73 Id., 233 Md. at 404, 197 73 Murray v. Comptroller of Treasury, 241 Md. 383, 391-92, 216 A.2d 897, 901-02 (1966), summarized infra p. 119, represents the converse. 115 A.2d at 111-12. Thus, the Court concluded, the plaintiffs failed to prove they had standing. Id., 233 Md. at 405, 197 A.2d at 112. It is important to note also that, even where a plaintiff may aver he is bringing the suit as a taxpayer, a court must examine whether he alleges that his tax burden is hurt by the allegedly illegal act or statute. For example, in Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Ass'n v. Kerngood, 171 Md. 426, 429, 189 A. 209, 209-10 (1937), the plaintiffs, as owners of licensed retail liquor stores and as taxpayers of the City, protested the renewal of a purchased license for a competing store on the grounds that such renewal violated a statute. Although the plaintiffs brought the suit as taxpayers of the City, the Court pointed out that, even though the courts in this State have found the “interest or injury which support [a taxpayer doctrine] suit is broadly comprehensive,” “[i]n this instance, there is no levy of taxes or outlay of public money to affect the petitioners as taxpayers.” Id., 171 Md. at 429, 189 A. at 210. 74 See also Carroll Park Manor Cnty. Ass'n v. Bd. of 74 The Court continued by analyzing whether the plaintiffs had an individual interest sufficient to confer standing. Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Ass’n v. Kerngood, 171 Md. 426, 429-30, 189 A. 209, 210 (1937). The Court found they did not. As holders of liquor licenses they have no franchises or exclusive privileges to be affected; they have only permits to engage in the business of selling alcoholic liquors. The interest which impels them to sue is only that of business advantage in keeping down the number of their competitors. They are not entitled in law to any advantage in a restricted number; it was not within the purpose of the statute to restrict competition for the benefit of any licensee; and in the accomplishment of the purpose which was sought, whatever it may have been, the petitioners are entirely without special interest. Id. (internal citations omitted). 116 Cnty. Comm'rs, 50 Md. App. 319, 324, 437 A.2d 689, 692 (1981) (finding that Frederick County’s failure to honor a charitable trust was an ultra vires act, but concluding that appellants were not entitled to bring the suit because they failed to show how the failure to abide the terms of the trust may result in their sustaining an increased tax burden or a pecuniary loss); Kerpelman, 261 Md. at 442-43, 276 A.2d at 60 (finding that complainant failed to allege sufficient injury because “the challenged transactions have-or-will-result in the placing of additional land on the tax rolls which will increase the tax base of the State so that the State taxes paid by [complainant] will actually be reduced as a result of those transactions” and because the complainant failed to explain how the “general allegations that the conveyances will have a damaging effect upon the marine ecology of the State” might “result in the payment of higher State taxes by [complainant]”). The requirement that the remedy sought, if granted, must alleviate the taxpayer’s burden must be viewed also in light of the general principles that require the doctrine to extend to all similarly-situated taxpayers. In other words, the remedy sought, if granted, must alleviate all similarly situated taxpayers’ burden, not just the plaintiffs’ personal burdens. This Court concluded that taxpayer standing did not exist in those cases where the plaintiffs sued in equity, allegedly as taxpayers, but failed to explain how the injury would extend to all taxpayers as a class generally. In such cases, “the ground of complaint is limited to their own injury.” Cook v. Normac Corp., 176 Md. 394, 395, 4 A.2d 747, 748 (1939). Because “[p]rivate individuals cannot redress the mere public wrong from disregard of the ordinances [or other statutes],” the only injury that the Court finds in such cases is that of the individual. 117 In Cook, the individual injury alleged was “only that which may result from competition . . . . But mere competition is not an evil which business men may enjoin as a wrong to them. Competition without full compliance with the law has been enjoined at the suit of private individuals, but only under some conditions . . . .” Cook, 176 Md. at 397, 4 A.2d at 749. Similarly, in Fisher & Carozza Bros. Co. v. Mackall, 138 Md. 586, 114 A. 580 (1921), the Court emphasized the importance that the alleged injury must be alleged to affect potentially all similarly-situated taxpayers: This suit, however, was not brought by the plaintiff as a taxpayer of the state, on its own behalf and on behalf of other taxpayers of the state, nor does it appear from the averments of the bill that it was such a taxpayer. The bill does not therefore bring the plaintiff within the class of persons entitled to maintain a suit to restrain the execution on behalf of the state of an illegal contract, or to enjoin the unlawful expenditure of the funds of the state. 138 Md. at 597, 114 A. at 584. When, however, the complainant alleges that he or she will suffer as a taxpayer due to increased taxpayer burdens and the government alleges that the taxpayers will not suffer any increased taxpayer burden, but rather the taxes would be diminished likely, “the court will not weigh potential gains against potential losses and speculate on a net result” “in determining a taxpayer’s pecuniary injury resulting from a claimed unlawful governmental act.” 75 Inlet Assocs., 313 Md. at 442, 545 A.2d at 1311 (citing Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 343-44, 329 A.2d at 687). Thus, “the taxpayer need not 75 The Court’s refusal to weigh potential gains against potential losses and to speculate on a net result is different from the Court’s finding that the complainant failed to allege any potential loss resulting from the alleged harm. See, e.g., Kerpelman, 261 Md. at 443, 276 A.2d at 60. 118 demonstrate that, necessarily, there will be pecuniary loss or increased taxes, but only the reasonable existence of that potential.” Id., 313 Md. at 442-43, 545 A.2d at 1311. When the complainant alleges a reasonable potential for increased taxes or pecuniary loss, this Court has not hesitated to find (repeatedly) that such minimal allegations are sufficient. See, e.g., Boitnott v. Mayor of Baltimore, 356 Md. 226, 234, 738 A.2d 881, 885 (1999) (finding that “[t]he allegation by the petitioners that the City has expended Twenty million dollars in developing Inner Harbor East prior to the present litigation is sufficient allegation of potential pecuniary damage by way of tax increase to withstand a standing challenge”); Murray v. Comptroller of Treasury, 241 Md. 383, 39192, 216 A.2d 897, 901-02 (1966) (finding that the appellants had taxpayer standing to challenge the tax exemption because “[t]he property owners who pay real estate taxes to the state, represented by all the appellants, would pay less taxes to the state if the exempted property were taxed”). Moreover, we have found that it is not dispositive that the complainant may be incorrect in his/her/its assertion that the taxes will be increased. See, e.g., McKaig v. Mayor of Cumberland, 208 Md. 95, 102, 116 A.2d 384, 387-88 (1955). The test is merely whether an increase in taxes is reasonably likely to occur. In the present case, the State Agencies aver that Appellees’ claims of taxpayer harm lack any “nexus” to the alleged illegal acts of the public officials. This is not accurate. While it is true that the total cost exposure to the State is difficult to ascertain, see Amended Complaint, at ¶ 14 (quoting the Department of Legislative Services (“DLS”), State Center – Transit-oriented Development Briefing (Feb. 2009)), as stating that “the total cost exposure to the State may never be known”), such a difficulty is the 119 reason that we do not require taxpayers to demonstrate in pleading the exact pecuniary loss or increase in taxes. In this case, Appellees alleged in their Amended Complaint that the Project is expected to cost $1.5 billion. Amended Complaint, at ¶ 2. “By virtue of the First Amendment, MDOT assumed that obligation [for the design, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of an underground garage for the Project] and also agreed to contribute up to $28 million taxpayer dollars toward the cost of the garage design and construction.” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 10. On 15 December 2010, “the BPW approved the issuance of $33 million in MEDCO Bonds supported by taxpayer revenues to build a Phase I parking garage at State Center . . . .” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 17. More specifically, Appellees allege that they will suffer a property tax increase due to this Project: Although the cost of the redevelopment has been represented to be financed with private funds, it will actually be financed in substantial part at the expense of existing Commercial Property Owners, Retail Merchants and others, through, among other ways, the issuance of City property tax increment financed bonds and other State and City assisted tax incentives. For example, the Project calls for the establishment of a Tax Incentive Financing (“TIF”) program of up to $314,254,055.00, allowing the Project’s self-described “partner,” Baltimore City, irrevocably to redirect future, increased property tax payments away from important City services and needs and into the debt service for the Developer’s construction financing. Plaintiffs will sustain an adverse impact from these expenditures, and those of the State, of taxpayer funds. Amended Complaint, at ¶ 19 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Additionally, Appellees assert that, because, “[t]he projected property assessments for State Center appear unrealistically high and do not appear to provide a sufficient base for paying the annual 120 debt service on the TIF without providing any additional property tax revenue in Baltimore City for the first 25 years,’ . . . ‘there is the potential that the developer could pass on higher costs to the State in the form of additional rent payments in order to cover annual debt service on the TIF.” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 20 (quoting DLS, State Center Transit Oriented Development Briefing (May 2009) (hereinafter “DLS May 2009 Briefing”)). 76 Appellees conclude the 76 Appellees aver in their Amended Complaint that the Project may not be viable in the long-run or may not be the best course of action for the State. See, e.g., Amended Complaint, at ¶ 24 (“The Project . . . undermines past public policy decision to revitalize the CBD, including downtown Baltimore and the Inner Harbor.”); ¶ 25 (“Injecting over 1.5 million square feet of new State and city subsidized commercial office space in the Baltimore metropolitan area will add an enormous, commercially unsupportable supply of office space in an already oversaturated and under-leased marketplace . . . It will directly and proximately cause myriad problems in the core downtown area, including long-term commercial vacancies, blight and business flight away from the center core of the City, all at a substantial loss of City property tax revenues. The CBD cannot remain viable under these circumstances.”); ¶ 26 (“Existing adverse commercial and market forces will be further exacerbated by the Project.”); ¶ 27 (“The large increase in the supply of retail space through the Project will lead directly to higher vacancy rates in the CBD, directly cause further harm to the Commercial Property Owners and lower levels of property tax collection for the City of Baltimore.”); ¶ 28 (“The Project threatens to increase vacancy rates by injecting government incentives into a massive State-sponsored development project that would otherwise be dependent on free market factors. . . . Increased supply of commercial office and retail space will, in turn, depress rental rates, which will adversely impact Plaintiffs’ properties and business”); ¶ 30 (“Redirecting the concentration of commercial office space to areas outside the CBD will lead to pockets of blight and will threaten the economic viability of the existing commercial and retail properties, including those in the CBD. Often referred to as ‘leap frog’ development strategies, the decentralization of commercial development has repeatedly led to the devaluation of the investments made by private sector entrepreneurs, urban blight, the flight of retail establishments, and other negative impacts.”). Appellees cite the DLS as reaching similar findings. See, e.g., Amended Complaint, at ¶ 29 (“According to DLS, ‘[t]he current economic climate raises concerns about the viability of the project given high inventory levels of vacant office space and housing in Baltimore City . . .’”) (brackets in original) (quoting DLS May 2009 Briefing); ¶ 31 (“DLS concludes that ‘the current State Center proposal is not in the best interest of the State.’”) (quoting DLS May 2009 Briefing); ¶ 33 (noting that the DLS stated that the benefits may never materialize) (citing DLS February 2009 Briefing). (Continued…) 121 introduction of their Amended Complaint by stating “[f]or these reasons and others, the Project will have a devastating financial impact on the CBD [Central Business District], its Commercial Property Owners and Retail Merchants, who are taxpayers and/or landowners in Baltimore City” and “Plaintiffs will uniquely bear the excessive costs, . . . as well as increased taxes, among other reasons, from the State’s failure to use open competition for procurement of design and construction services, thus, not ensuring the best deal for the State.” 77 Amended Complaint, at ¶ 33. Such allegations are sufficient to overcome the Motions to Dismiss as to this element of taxpayer standing. (…continued) Such arguments are not within the purview of this Court. Taxpayer standing doctrine is not a method by which litigants may ask this Court to review the feasibility or wisdom of legislative decisions made properly within the Legislature’s authority—under the guise of a loss of tax revenues due to the alleged lack of wisdom in the decision. The taxpayer standing doctrine does not grant standing to every taxpayer who may allege a general harm. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ allegations of the general harm suffered by taxpayers of the State are irrelevant as well. See, e.g., Amended Complaint, at ¶ 33 (“[T]he Project will have a devastating financial impact on the CBD, its Commercial Property Owners and Retail Merchants, who are taxpayers and/or landowners in Baltimore City. The Commercial Property Owners and Retail Merchants employ, directly or indirectly, thousands of people and have invested heavily in their properties, their business, and the City. The Project allows the Developer to receive City and State subsidized benefits and opportunities unavailable to the Commercial Property Owners and Retail Merchants, all without compliance with State procurement laws.”) (emphasis added). In this case, Appellees wasted a great deal of everyone’s time attempting to establish the infeasibility and the imprudence of the Project, as well as general harms unrelated to expenditures from the public coffers. 77 Appellees alleged, in full, that “Plaintiffs will uniquely bear the excessive costs, lose business opportunities, loss of customers, suffer a diminution in the value of their assets and other catastrophic financial loss, as well as increased taxes . . .” Amended Complaint, at ¶ 33 (emphasis added). These additional factors (and other similar allegations) do not provide a basis for taxpayer standing and, as stated previously, are disregarded in our analysis. 122 (3) Amount of Pecuniary Harm. In this case, the State Agencies aver that, even if Appellees alleged a proper type of “harm,” the amount of pecuniary loss asserted was too speculative to confer taxpayer standing. The State Agencies suggest that, because the State is the actor in this case, the amount of increase in Appellees’ taxes is too attenuated or diluted to confer taxpayer standing. This argument continues that the taxpayers have more of a direct interest in challenging a municipal action (like one taken by the City only) than the State’s action because, when the damage is spread across all of the City’s taxpayers, the individual taxpayer will feel more of an impact than when spreading an alleged injury across all of the State’s taxpayers. It is well-settled that the individual’s monetary burden does not need to be calculable at the time of filing suit. Equally well-settled, however, is the requirement that there must be a “clear showing” that a monetary burden is alleged. This Court has noted repeatedly that the taxpayers are not required to prove an exact amount of pecuniary damage that he or she or they will suffer. In fact, we have gone so far as to state that the amount of individual loss is largely irrelevant. See, e.g., Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 344, 329 A.2d at 687 (“The property loss may be small when apportioned among all of them, especially where . . . the suit is instituted by one or more taxpayers in representation of all those similarly situated.”). As we said in Citizens Planning, The courts below attached considerable significance to what they regard as conclusory language in the bill of complaint. Concededly, the allegations might have been particularized in greater detail, but this shortcoming may have been unavoidable in the unique circumstances of this case. The extent to which a taxpayer is capable of detailing the damage anticipated 123 from an illegal and ultra vires act, such as is alleged here, may be rather limited at the time the suit is initially filed. Contrary to the suggestion of the Court of Special Appeals, appellants are not required to allege ‘. . . facts which necessarily lead to the conclusion that taxes will be increased.’ [Citizens Planning & Housing Ass’n v. Cnty. Exec. of Baltimore Cnty.,] 20 Md. App. [430,] 434, 316 A.2d [263,] 266 [(1974)] (emphasis added). The test is whether appellants reasonably may sustain a pecuniary loss or a tax increase; see Reed v. McKeldin[, 207 Md. 553, 558, 115 A.2d 281, 284 (1955)]; Masson v Reindollar[, 193 Md. 683, 687-88, 69 A.2d 482, 484 (1949)]; Liquor Stores Assn. v. Commrs[, 171 Md. 426, 429, 189 A. 209, 210 (1937)]. . . .; or, as the Court of Special Appeals itself noted, whether there has been a showing of potential pecuniary damage. Gordon v. City of Baltimore, [ ] 258 Md. [682,] 687688, 267 A.2d 98[, 101-02 (1970)]; see Thomas v. Howard County, [ ] 261 Md. [422,] 432, 276 A.2d 49[, 54 (1971)]. 273 Md. at 344, 329 A.2d at 687 (emphasis added). Moreover, in reviewing a circuit court’s action on a motion to dismiss, the appellate courts “accept as true the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the facts alleged . . . .” Citizens Planning, 273 Md. at 345, 329 A.2d at 687. Accordingly, it is not “essential that the amount of the loss of revenue be specifically set forth.” Id., 273 Md. at 344, 329 A.2d at 687. The important requirement is that the plaintiff allege that, as a taxpayer, he or she “would be pecuniarily affected.” See Funk, 197 Md. at 196, 78 A.2d at 635 (distinguishing that case from Phillips v. Ober, 197 Md. 167, 78 A.2d 630 (1951)). As discussed above, Appellees pleaded sufficiently a loss of revenue from the public funds contributed by them as taxpayers. 124 We also reject the State Agencies’ contention that the alleged loss is too miniscule relative to the State action challenged. The relevant line of decisions in this State do not appear to us to support this assertion. 78 For example, in Sun Cab Co., the Court stated, Probably the loss to one taxpayer in any such proceeding seldom amounts to $20, the minimum of the debt or damage which a court of equity may consider. Code, art. 16, § 109; Kenneweg v. Allegany County Com'rs, 102 Md. 119, [121], 62 A. 249, 250 [(1905)]. But, when a suit is instituted by one or more taxpayers in representation of all, the case is quite different. The amount involved and sought to be protected is then the total amount of loss to taxpayers, or the total amount which may be wrongfully expended. In Kenneweg v. Allegany County, supra, cited against the maintenance of the present suit, a single taxpayer was the complainant, and, as the court observed, he “does not sue in behalf of 78 Dicta in some cases refers to the small amount of damages that each taxpayer suffers. For example, in 1880, this Court stated, “[t]he public has no interest in this controversy. The difference between the proposals of the competing contractors is infinitesimally small, when divided amongst the tax-payers.” Kelly, 53 Md. at 142-43. As discussed supra, however, that case is distinguishable as a private claim and, thus, this language should be read as dicta. Additionally, Kerpelman found that a taxpayer of the State and of Baltimore City did not have sufficient interest in the subject matter, a piece of property in Worcester County, because “Mrs. Kerpelman alleges no interest in that property as a local taxpayer.” Kerpelman, 261 Md. at 442, 276 A.2d at 59-60. That case is distinguishable also. The Court found there that, when considering the tax implications of the challenged conveyance of the property, it appears that the challenged transactions have-or will-result in the placing of additional land on the tax rolls which will increase the tax base of the State so that the State taxes paid by Mrs. Kerpelman will actually be reduced as a result of those transactions. There are general allegations that the conveyances will have a damaging effect upon the marine ecology of the State, but there are no allegations of facts which would support these general allegations and, in any event, there are no allegations which indicate how this will result in the payment of higher State taxes by Mrs. Kerpelman. Id., 261 Md. at 443, 276 A.2d at 60. 125 himself and other taxpayers who may be similarly situated,    but he sues alone, in his own name and his own behalf.” His loss alone was too small to come within the statutory limitation, the court held. But a bill filed in the name of one or more of the taxable inhabitants for themselves and all others similarly situated the court should regard as “in the nature of a public proceeding to test the validity of the corporate acts sought to be impeached and deal with and control it accordingly.” 4 Dillon, Municipal Corporations (5th Ed.) § 1587; Kelly, Piet & Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 53 Md. 134, 141 [(1880)]. Sun Cab Co., 162 Md. at 427, 159 A. at 925 (emphasis added). See also Christmas v. Warfield, 105 Md. 530, 540-41, 66 A. 491, 492 (1907) (concluding that taxpayer standing doctrine conferred standing upon the complainant, a taxpayer and resident of the State, alleging a State’s action as illegal). 79 In sum, we conclude that Appellees pleaded taxpayer standing doctrine sufficiently and, thus, the Circuit Court denied properly the State Agencies’ Motions to Dismiss on standing grounds.