Comments on FTPBP #5 - 2012
Jurisdiction Position Comments

CALIFORNIA
Oppose

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Oppose

UTAH
Oppose

VERMONT
Oppose

NEW MEXICO
Oppose

COLORADO
Support

ILLINOIS
Support

CONNECTICUT
Support We support the ballot however we do have a question for the authors.  How would the program compliance review teams propose to enforce this requirement if passed?

MANITOBA
Support

SASKATCHEWAN
Support Good idea.

MARYLAND
Support

MINNESOTA
Support

Minnesota agrees it is important for a properly completed tax return to have the data current  and readily available.  It may be helpful to have a summary page that lists the exemptions for all jurisdictions rather than querying several documents in determining the exemptions when completing the IFTA tax return.   


MONTANA
Support

ONTARIO
Support The database is currently being under utilized despite being redesigned in 2010 based on membership feedback. Ontario believes by making the update a mandatory requirement, it will allow for greater reliance on the database by providing reliable and relevant information in one central location, the IFTA, Inc. website. 

MAINE
Support

NEBRASKA
Support

OHIO
Support

KANSAS
Support

Exemption data is very important and needs to be kept up to date for both the carrier and the jurisdictions.  Audit needs accurate data in order to complete audits on behalf of fellow jurisdictions.


NEVADA
Support

IDAHO
Support

NOVA SCOTIA
Support

MICHIGAN
Support

NEW BRUNSWICK
Support

ALABAMA
Support

IOWA
Support

The current data may not be reliable because mandatory reporting is not required. It is better to direct the carriers to IFTA website instead of multiple states for the information.


WYOMING
Support

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Support

BC would also suggest there be a modification to the IFTA exemption database so that it informs jurisdictions and licencees when a jurisdiction has made a change.


TEXAS
Support

QUEBEC
Support If updated regularly, the exemptions database will be more helpful.

ARIZONA
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Support

MISSOURI
Support Missouri supports and also apologizes to the members as its exemption database has had incorrect information published and has not been updated to reflect the proper information.

WEST VIRGINIA
Support

MASSACHUSETTS
Support

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Support

NEW JERSEY
Support

VIRGINIA
Support

Audit Committee
Support

The AC is in support of this ballot.  Additionally, the AC recommends an archive of prior year exemptions be maintained for the purposes of conducting audits.


NORTH DAKOTA
Undecided

NEW YORK
Undecided

PENNSYLVANIA
Undecided

ALBERTA
Undecided
Support: 33
Oppose: 5
Undecided: 4
View Ballot Comments