View Ballot Comments

Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2012

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta has some concerns. Our online system currently captures the demographic information at the registration stage, eg, who can file the return, their name, phone number and email address, etc. Each filer is assigned an ID so that we will know who actually files the return. Redesigning a return for electronic filing that contains information we already obtain at our registration stage may cause us problems.
ARIZONA	Support
Audit Committee	Undecided	The AC supports the intent of this ballot but is concerned that the removal of providing “A space for the….” will change the meaning of P720 and will require each jurisdiction to “pre-populate” all of the data fields. This is not possible as it would require the jurisdiction to fill in information that it does not have like “total distance traveled” etc. Recommend revising the language to remove “Each jurisdiction shall use” from the Required Information in P720 to read, “A standard tax return shall contain, but not be limited to, the elements listed below.”
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC supports the ballot but finds the wording confusing/problematic and would suggest the following. P700 – A standard tax return shall contain the elements listed in P720 regardless of how the tax return (e.g., manually or electronically) is prepared and filed. These elements must also be provided on the appropriate transmittal. Unrelated but another suggestion within P720: “P720.550 – Totals for the columns that are listed under P720.500 with the exception of P720.500.010, P720.500.035; and P720.500.045.” There appears to be no value in carriers calculating the total “net taxable gallons or liters” for all jurisdictions.
CALIFORNIA	Support
COLORADO	Support
CONNECTICUT	Support
IDAHO	Support
ILLINOIS	Undecided
IOWA	Support
KANSAS	Support	Kansas supports this ballot our paper and electronic filed returns already capture all the needed data. We would also like to suggest that e-mail addresses and total interest column may be included as an optional field.
MAINE	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support
MASSACHUSETTS	Support
MICHIGAN	Support	Language subject to changes
MINNESOTA	Undecided	Minnesota is unsure of the unintended consequences of the proposal. The concern is “data captured” . The paper tax return contains the base jurisdiction name and address, an electronically filed tax return does not capture the base jurisdiction name and address. The P700 Proposal states the data “must be provided on the appropriate transmittal.” This appears to be a change to the transmittal data as currently the transmittal data does not capture the items in P700.750,P720.800, and P700.850.
MISSOURI	Support	Missouri's MCE system captures the required information at our common customer and IFTA fleet levels, however, it does not capture the information on the tax return if it is filed online. Missouri has approximately 1600 customers, per quarter, that file via paper.
MONTANA	Support
NEBRASKA	Oppose	Nebraska has some concerns regarding the language used in this ballot. To state that the "data elements listed in P720 are to be data captured....." poses a problem in our view. IF the term 'data captured' implies that the carrier is keying in this data or that the on-line process somehow stores this data per tax return - we would have problems with that. For example, while we do have our jurisdicton name and address printed on the paper tax return - we do not store nor do we capture that information on an electronically filed tax return.
NEVADA	Oppose	Nevada would like the language changed in P720 to state "A standard tax return that shall capture, but not be limited to, the elements listed below" to remove the responsibility of the jurisdiction from providing the elements on the tax return. The former language simply required 'a space' for each element. Additionally, R950 should be changed from 'a standard tax return form that contains...' to 'a standard tax return that captures...' since the intent of the ballot was to move to the electronic world. Nevada does not want the tax returns to be required to be pre-printed.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NEW JERSEY	Support
NEW MEXICO	Support
NEW YORK	Oppose	New York feels that the language does not reflect what the intent of this ballot.
NORTH CAROLINA	Support
NORTH DAKOTA	Undecided
NOVA SCOTIA	Support
OHIO	Support
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario supports the proposed language as it provides guidance and consistency among the jurisdictions regarding data elements to be captured on IFTA tax returns.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
TEXAS	Support	Suggest this ballot also delete P720.550 requiring totals for each column on the return. Having a total for each column should be optional.
UTAH	Support
VERMONT	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WYOMING	Support
Support: 34 Oppose: 3 Undecided: 5