IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

You can now browse through past ballot comments using the tools below.

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2025

Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALBERTA		 Support Alberta supports this change as it is necessary for the new compliance review process, which has been adopted and should result in less resource burden for jurisdictions.

CONNECTICUT		 Support Connecticut supports this change as it is necessary for the new compliance review process, which has been adopted and should result in less resource burden for jurisdictions. When P1230 Required Participation was set stating that no member jurisdiction will be required to participate in more than two program compliance reviews per year, in person reviews were conducted at the location of the jurisdiction being reviewed. Since the reviewers were required to travel to the jurisdictions being reviewed, it made sense to limit the number of in-person reviews to 2 per year so it would not put an undue burden on the reviewer and the reviewer's jurisdiction. This ballot will allow the reviewers to more efficiently conduct multiple reviews in a group setting during one travel week which is no more burdensome than what the current language requires.

ILLINOIS		 Oppose Position:  Oppose as drafted.
The proposed language in this ballot is ambiguous and not fully developed.  For instance, the following questions must be addressed in the body of P1230:
  • What does “assistance with these program reviews” entail?
  • What is the “bulk review process”? 
  • How is the schedule to be established?  What are the parameters for establishing a schedule?
  • How frequently will a reviewer have to serve the “two-year term”? How will the reviewer jurisdictions be selected for the two-year terms?
  • What are the “review responsibilities”?  If they are outlined in another section of the manual, a cross reference should be inserted. 
Also, it should be noted that, although a reviewer “may be asked” to participate in entrance meetings or discussion, this ballot does not actually require a reviewer to participate. 

KENTUCKY		 Support Should streamline the process and make it easier on jurisdictions. 

MANITOBA		 Oppose Manitoba agrees with Ontario's comment about the travel week.  It most likely will be difficult to get approval to travel.

NEVADA		 Oppose Nevada opposes the ballot as written. Differentiating between Admin and Audit reviews would be beneficial. Nevada agrees with Illinois on adding details of the process and agrees with Ontario on travel week.

NEW BRUNSWICK		 Support

NEWFOUNDLAND		 Oppose

ONTARIO		 Oppose Ontario supports the new program compliance review process, and we recognize this process has been adopted apart from ballot #02-2025.
However, Ontario does not support including the concept of a “travel week” in the Articles of Agreement under Required Participation. Ontario cannot commit to funding travel and accommodations for a week and does not support making travel for IFTA events required for member jurisdictions.
Ontario could support this ballot if it was updated to say travel was preferred but not required.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND		 Oppose

WYOMING		 Support Wyoming supports this ballot.  The current limitation, restricting jurisdictions to no more than two reviews per year, conflicts with the new process. In the old process, if you reviewed 2 jurisdictions each year, it would take many days for each review.  In the old process, the reviewer would be spending  2 weeks or more to review 2 jurisdictions.  In the new process, you will be able to review 10-15 jurisdicions in a few days.  The new process has dramatically changed so that you are looking at reports to determine compliance vs going line by line through taxpayer returns. 
Support: 5
Oppose: 6
Undecided: 0

© Copyright 2025 IFTA, Inc. All Rights Reserved