Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2018
Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALABAMA
Support

ALBERTA
Undecided We are undecided on the ballot. We understand the benefits for a firm cut-off date. However, we have concerns with the current proposal that rate changes received less than 60 days not be communicated to member jurisdictions. Our thoughts are that if we agree on a cut-off date, jurisdictions are still allowed to communicate the change. It is just that other jurisdictions do not need to implement the rate change.  We also prefer the current language under P1120.300 that the other jurisdictions will be relieved from taking extraordinary measures to implement the change.

Attorneys Section Steering Committee
Oppose IFTA Ballot Proposal #04-2018
Comment of the IFTA Attorneys’ Section

IFTA Ballot Proposal #04-2018 as written seeks to establish a firm cutoff date or lockdown date for tax rate changes, whereby member jurisdictions must notify the IFTA repository of any tax rate changes not less than 55 days prior to the return due date and would further disallow any member jurisdiction from implementing any other jurisdiction’s tax rate changes if the above deadline is not met. 

Procedures Manual §1120.100 presently states that member jurisdictions are required to notify the IFTA repository of all tax rate changes at the earliest possible time.  Failure to report tax rate changes is addressed at P1120.300, which states that if a member jurisdiction fails to report a tax rate change to the repository at least 60 days prior to the quarterly return due date, other member jurisdictions are not required to take “extraordinary measures” to implement the tax rate change. 

The IFTA Attorneys’ Section makes the following observations regarding IFTA Ballot Proposal #04-2018:

1.  Articles of Agreement R130.100 sets out the three core provisions to effect the purpose of the IFTA Agreement.  Included as one of those core provisions is the “[r]etention of each jurisdiction’s sovereign authority to determine tax rates, exemptions and exercise other substantive tax authority.”  (see R130.100.010).  The implementation of a firm cutoff date coupled with disallowing jurisdictions from implementing another jurisdictions untimely tax rate change (per the proposed ballot language), might be construed as contrary to or a limitation upon a jurisdictions authority to determine and set tax rates.  Because the core provisions of the Agreement are authorized by Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, this type of change may result in challenges that IFTA is acting outside the Congressional approval. 

2.  As written, this ballot would deny jurisdictions the opportunity to seek assistance from other jurisdictions if, for example, a jurisdiction has a tax rate change enacted outside the specified reporting time or if a jurisdiction has an error in their tax rate on the IFTA tax matrix.  Under the current provisions, the jurisdiction with the late or erroneous tax rate can notify other jurisdictions of the rate discrepancy (especially neighboring jurisdictions where it is known there will be mileage and fuel reported) and request the other jurisdictions update their system with the correct information, if doing so does not require extraordinary measures.  These other jurisdictions are not required to make the correction, but allows the jurisdictions the opportunity to work cooperatively if possible, thereby mitigating any negative effects. 

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Support

GEORGIA
Support

ILLINOIS
Support

KANSAS
Support

KENTUCKY
Support

MAINE
Support

MANITOBA
Support

MICHIGAN
Support

MINNESOTA
Undecided While Minnesota is in agreement in principle of the change, we believe that the language in .300, "...should not..." leaves some doubt as to if this is a directive or is it advice. 

The author's stated intent is to establish a firm cut off date, therefore would the authors consent to a change of wording to "must" or "shall not" thus making the statement a directive.

 

MISSISSIPPI
Support

MONTANA
Support

NEVADA
Support

NEW BRUNSWICK
Support

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Support

NEW MEXICO
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Oppose

NOVA SCOTIA
Support

OKLAHOMA
Support After additional discussion within the community, Oklahoma sees the value in enforcing a firm cut-off date for the communication of tax rate changes.

QUEBEC
Oppose

RHODE ISLAND
Oppose

SASKATCHEWAN
Support

SOUTH CAROLINA
Support South Carolina supports FTPBP #4

SOUTH DAKOTA
Support

Stakeholders
Support 11/6/2018
ATA - Robert Pitcher

Support.  The American Trucking Associations supports Ballot Proposal #4 for the reasons outlined in the comments of the sponsor.  Late-enacted tax rate changes will continue to be an occasional problem for IFTA, but the establishment of a more solid, enforceable cut-off date will avoid unnecessary turmoil for licensees and jurisdictional personnel alike.

10/25/2018
IAC Chair - Dennis Vanderslice

Support.  The IFTA IAC is in favor of enforcing the cut-off date determined by the Articles of Agreement. The IAC feels that the implementation of rate changes must be absolute and consistent amongst ALL jurisdictions.  A rate change in a single jurisdiction affects ALL members of IFTA including both government and industry.  When rates are updated after the official cut-off date and the changes are not communicated effectively, or some jurisdictions update at will, it causes confusion and an unnecessary additional workload for both government and industry in the form of late and/or amended returns.  This in turn creates additional financial repercussions with penalty and interest charged against late or amended returns.

TENNESSEE
Support

UTAH
Oppose We already have a cutoff date.

VIRGINIA
Support

WASHINGTON
Support

WEST VIRGINIA
Oppose We already have a cut off date. 

WYOMING
Support
Support: 25
Oppose: 6
Undecided: 2
View Ballot Comments