Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2018
Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALABAMA
Support In rare cases, an Alabama-based taxpayer does not bring their equipment back to Alabama; therefore, they have no distance to report in Alabama.  However, they are still an Alabama-based taxpayer, and have not established "residency" in any other state.  A jurisdiction should not be prevented from issuing licenses to its taxpayers.  

ALBERTA
Undecided Alberta generally supports the idea but have concerns about redefining "Base Jurisdiction" as well as the definitions provided for "Established Place of Business" and "Residence".  The latter two terms are often used in corporate income tax administration and there have been court cases on how those terms are interpreted. Similiar to the concerns raised by the ASSC, Alberta would be more comfortable if the Articles of Agreement are amended in other sections to support the idea.  

Attorneys Section Steering Committee
Oppose As written, the ballot seeks to amend the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” in a manner that makes it unclear if a licensee might be allowed to have two (2) different Base Jurisdictions at the same time.  The IFTA Attorney’s Section would oppose amending the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” to achieve the intended purpose of this ballot.  If the intent of the ballot is to allow an IFTA license to be issued in a jurisdiction other than where the qualified motor vehicle is registered, the Attorneys’ Section agree, the more appropriate place to make such a change within the IFTA governing documents is R500 of the Articles.  Language addressing this type of situation already exists within the provisions of R530.200 for Independent Contractors which states, “[i]f the lessee (carrier) through a written agreement or contract assumes responsibility for reporting and paying fuel use taxes, the base jurisdiction for purposes of this Agreement shall be the base jurisdiction of the lessee, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the qualified motor vehicle is registered for vehicle registration purposes by the lessor.”  Similar language could be used to extend the provision to long-term Rental/Leasing, if that is consistent with the sponsor’s intent.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Undecided BC supports the concept but is not sure about the ballot, or if a change is necessary.  BC does not believe IFTA has ever looked for, or cited a jurisdiction for issuing or renewing a carrier’s IFTA credentials with no travel in and/or vehicles registered in the base-jurisdiction.

BC expects travel in BC and vehicles registered in BC but if we ever identified this situation, the business provided a good explanation and was still maintaining some sort of business location within BC I’m fairly sure we’d register them “provisionally” and revisit in 6 months or during the next IFTA renewal cycle.  Is there something specific preventing other jurisdictions from doing the same within their existing legislation?
 

CALIFORNIA
Undecided

CONNECTICUT
Undecided

IDAHO
Support

ILLINOIS
Undecided I’m still undecided.

As a side comment, I am wondering if "residence" really means a “status” of an applicant or licensee as proposed in the following langauge:
 
                    *R252   Residence means the status of an applicant or licensee as a resident of a member jurisdiction. (underlined)
 
Residence is typically defined as a physical structure or location where one resides, not a status of a person (applicant, licensee, resident).
 

KANSAS
Undecided

MAINE
Support We beleive we can support this ballot, but we have some concerns regarding unintended consequences.  Reserving final support until we have seen other comments.

MANITOBA
Undecided We agree with PEI's comments.

MARYLAND
Oppose Maryland opposes the current ballot language as there is no provision to allow D.C. carriers, who desire to obtain IFTA credentials, an option to license in a member jurisdiction.  The D.C. carriers do not necessarily have Maryland registered vehicles, a physical presence, nor residency within Maryland, and would be forced to obtain trip permits for interjurisdictional travel.  A possible solution might be to amend the language to change "and" to "or" beteen 200 and 300. 

MICHIGAN
Support

MINNESOTA
Support Minnesota supports ballot proposal 03-2018.  We recognize that there are occasions where a licensee who is a resident and physically located in the state yet may be working outside the state and not accruing mileage in the home state and support the ballot to allow these circumstances.
 

MISSISSIPPI
Undecided

MONTANA
Support

NEBRASKA
Undecided

NEVADA
Support The intent of this ballot is to allow a licensee to open an IFTA only account as long as they can show proof of residency or established place of business in a jurisdiction when they do not also have a vehicle registered in that jurisdiction.  Nevada has seen an increase in recent years where the carrier responsible for safety is different than the registrant, but truly a resident or maintains an established place of business in Nevada.  However, when the vehicle is registered in another jurisdiction by the registrant and the carrier responsible for safety does not have any vehicles, there is no provision for them to open an IFTA only account.  This ballot does not change the recordkeeping or accrued distance in the base jurisdiction requirements.  Please feel free to contact Dawn Lietz, NV; Jay Starling, AB; or Joy Prenger, MO if you have any questions.

NEW BRUNSWICK
Undecided

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Undecided

NORTH CAROLINA
Oppose

NOVA SCOTIA
Undecided

OKLAHOMA
Undecided The way this ballot is constructed, a registrant can base in any jurisdiction where the qualified motor vehicles are based, or the licensee has an EPOB or provides proof of residence and operational control is maintained and some travel is accrued.

In the History/Digest section of the ballot it suggests an intent to allow a licensee to base in a jurisdiction in which, due to business circumstances, cannot accrue distance in the base jurisdiction. That intent seems to conflict with the modified R212.400 language that continues to require travel in the base jurisdiction.

ONTARIO
Oppose Given the cautionary advice noted in the ASSC commentary, ON does not support the proposal in its current structure.
 

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Undecided Although we support the desire to allow carriers to operate longer periods outside their base, it is cause for concern that their records no longer need to be maintained, nor be made accessible in their base jurisdiction.  There is also concern with the lack of a time limit as is stipulated in  IRP.  This seems to open the door henceforth and forever more.  PEI will follow the comments on this ballot before deciding our final position.

QUEBEC
Oppose The language of this ballot is confusing and could create uncertainty for carriers and jurisdictions.
Indeed, the conditions set out for the definition of "Home Jurisdiction" are sometimes alternative (or) and sometimes cumulative (and) which complicates the understanding. In addition, the use of the concept of "Residence" involves certain issues, including the fact that this definition may vary depending on the jurisdiction.
We suggest reworking this ballot to better target its scope and thus ensure the desired results.

RHODE ISLAND
Oppose

SOUTH CAROLINA
Undecided

SOUTH DAKOTA
Support

UTAH
Oppose Utah is in agreement with ON regarding the cautionary advice noted in the ASSC commentary, and therefore, does not support the current proposal without further discussion on this issue.

VIRGINIA
Undecided

WASHINGTON
Support

WEST VIRGINIA
Undecided

WISCONSIN
Support

WYOMING
Support
Support: 11
Oppose: 7
Undecided: 17
View Ballot Comments