IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #11 - 2025

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Opposed	Alberta supports the intent of the ballot to provide some level of certainty with respect to the potential consequences of non-compliance, however this ballot is too restrictive. Alberta prefers to wait for the outcome of the recent Board Charge related to a review of the Dispute Resolution Process subsequent to recent decisions by the Dispute Resolution Committee before considering further changes to the agreement.
Attorney Advisory Committee		Edits are not in red, like other ballot proposals. The ballot should be updated throughout to remove the capital letters from “Member Jurisdiction”. This is not a defined term and is presented in lower case throughout the rest of the Agreement. The proposed amendment to R1555.300 refers to the DRC giving “fair notice” to the member jurisdiction of its alleged failure. The reference appears to be contextual; however, the term “fair notice” is not defined and it is not clear where the requirement to give such notice is specified. It is noted that the IFTA Dispute Resolution Procedures refer to the DRC requesting the Repository to provide public notice of a meeting, including advising all parties of the posting of the public notice. However, the IFTA Dispute Resolution Procedures do not require the notice to be “fair”, and the Agreement does not appear to require any such notice, fair or otherwise. Accordingly, if the desire is to ensure that jurisdictions receive notice of an alleged failure, then the requirement to give such notice should reasonably be included in the Agreement, including any specifications in respect of the notice (such in being in writing and provided within a certain number of days of a particular event). The consequences of the DRC or Repository failing to comply with the notice requirement should also be specified. While the proposed amendment specifies the various remedies that may be imposed by the DRC, it is not clear in R1555, nor in the IFTA Dispute Resolution Procedures, how and when the non-compliant member jurisdiction is to be notified of each remedy imposed. The opening paragraph to R1555.300 states, “…the Dispute Resolution Committee may impose only such remedial action as set forth herein.” It is suggested that the word “herein” needs clarification, as it is unclear whether it refers to the Agreement as a whole, to R1555 as a whole, or to just R1555.300. The only reference to “herein” currently in the Agreement is found in R1810.200.060, which refers to “…filed pursuant to Section R1555 herein”, which implies the Agreement, i.e., R1555 within the Agreement. Proposed R1555.300.015 and R1555.300.020 both refer to a recommendation for a resolution of expulsion being forwarded to the Board of Trustees “for action pursuant to subsection .400 of this Section”. However, subsection .400 does not provide any actionable guidance for the Board to carry out or otherwise follow, but rather merely prohibits the impoundment of funds. It is questioned whether the reference to subsection .400 should be to subsection .600? The first sentence of the second paragraph to proposed R1555.300.025 states, “When adjudicating disputes arising from a Member Jurisdiction’s failure to comply with any requirement authorized under this Agreement, the Dispute Resolution Committee is limited to those actions provided for herein.” It is suggested that this sentence is unnecessary and may be deleted to avoid redundance, as the opening paragraph to R1555.300 already states, “…the Dispute Resolution Committee may impose only such remedial action as set forth herein.” The second sentence of the second paragraph to proposed R1555.300.025 (“Any resolution of such disputes shall not include…”) seems misplaced and perhaps should be set out in a separate subsection. Proposed section R1555.500 states, “…is stayed for 60 after the Board of Trustees issues”. It is suggested that the word “days” is missing after “60”.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Undecided	British Columbia supports the intent of this ballot as it’s important that the consequences for non-compliance are clearly communicated to all jurisdictions. The current language on the DRC’s discretion on remedies in the dispute resolution process is too vague. This has led to the recent situation where the DRC “abused its discretion in this instance by taking actions that significantly exceeded the expectations of member jurisdictions with respect to the remedies outlined in the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP).” IFTA is a cooperative agreement and BC believes the remedies as outlined in the ballot are sufficient to bring non-compliant jurisdictions into compliance. Expulsion from IFTA is a severe penalty and BC feels damages and punitive actions are not warranted as remedies. BC would support the ballot with changes to the language to reflect comments from Quebec and specific comments from North Caroline (enforcement ability for compliance matters originating under R1555.100.005 and R1555.100.010, clarification on whether the expulsion process requires only a majority vote, and other unclear language).
Dispute Resolution Committee		The Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) includes remedies specifically designed to address matters of jurisdictional non-compliance. In response to a recent Board Charge, a subcommittee has been established to thoroughly review and examine the DRP. The subcommittee’s focus directly aligns with the objectives outlined in Ballot #11-2025, and their work will also include broader updates to the DRP to ensure the best possible outcomes for all parties involved in a dispute. As members of the IFTA community, it is important that we support the subcommittee in fulfilling their charge and place our trust in a process that is both deliberate and collaborative. Be confident that their recommendations will reflect the best interests of all stakeholders”.
INDIANA	Support	Indiana supports this ballot.
Industry Advisory Committee		The Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) op The Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) opposes Ballot #11-2025, as it diminishes the authority of the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), which was established to serve a critical and clearly defined role within the Agreement. While we agree that a review of the current Dispute Resolution Process may be appropriate to enhance clarity and improve guidance on next steps, we firmly believe the process itself should remain intact to preserve the structure and integrity envisioned by the Agreement. Jurisdictions found to be out of compliance should be referred to the appropriate bodies and provided with a transparent path to resolution—supported by a defined timeline and clearly articulated consequences for continued non-compliance.
KANSAS	Oppose
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MANITOBA	Support	MB agrees with Maryland's comments.
MARYLAND	Support	Maryland strongly supports this ballot. The intent of this ballot proposal is to benefit all jurisdictions by specifying the consequences of member non-compliance, establishing a floor for consistency in non-compliance determinations, and providing concrete guidance to the Dispute Resolution Committee. As a result of this change, jurisdictions will have *fair notice of the consequences of non-compliance and a reasonable opportunity to confront any allegations of non-compliance*. Furthermore, the Dispute Resolution Committee will have clear guidance when conducting its proceedings
MICHIGAN	Oppose
NEVADA	Oppose	What is "fair notice"? Also regarding the "Stays" for judicial relief, shouldn't the juris incur penalties and/or interest during the "Stay" as is done with Audits? NV also agrees with NC, OK and SD comments.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose
NEWFOUNDLAND	Undecided
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	North Carolina has concerns regarding this ballot. First, and most concerning, the ballot appears to prohibit the Dispute Resolution Committee from imposing damages (i.e. restitution) against the offending jurisdiction for the harm it caused other jurisdictions. North Carolina understands that the ballot prohibits the imposition of monetary fines or penalties, which are distinct concepts from damages. Generally, a penalty is imposed to punish a person ensuring future compliance and creating strong incentives for all who must comply. Damages are used to compensate a person for the harm suffered. However, when combined with the language that the remedies in R1555.300 are exclusive, it appears the ballot prevents the DRC from placing the injured jurisdiction in the position it would have been but for the noncompliance. The ballot’s limitation of remedies is unsettling, and North Carolina takes the position that the DRC should have the authority to require the offending jurisdiction make the injured jurisdiction whole. Second, the sponsors have unwittingly removed the enforcement ability for compliance matters originating under R1555.100.005 and R1555.100.010. The expulsion remedy under R1555.300 (amended as R1555.600) would only apply to DRC actions taken under R1555.300.015 or .020. This undercuts the previous function of R1555.300, which provides the expulsion remedy for any matter subject to the IFTA Dispute Resolution Process. Third, R1555.500 extends the stay longer than it should. It provides that a stay will remain in place “pending a Member Jurisdiction’s filed claim seeking judicial relief regarding the determination.” If the DRC has issued its determination, and that determination has been reviewed by the Board of Trustees, the decision for further stays should be at the discretion of the court. In the alternative, if damages are allowed and determined by the DRC, and have been upheld on review by the Board, the jurisdiction subject to the disciplinary action should have to pay the damages into trust to automatically secure the stay pending resolution of appeal with the court. Fourth, North Carolina is unclear whether the expulsion process requires only a majority vote. This should be clarified. Finally, some of the ballot’s language is unclear because it contains phrases that should be removed, repeats content, and has incorrect internal citations. For example: The ballot states three times that the remedies are exclusive – once will suffice. The ballot states that disciplinary action “should be imposed in a progressive manner in order to give the Member Jurisdiction a reasonable opportunity to come into compliance.” This phrase serves no purpose where the only remedies available to the DRC are progressive, and the ballot conditions the remedies on coming into compliance. Therefore, it should be removed. R1555.300.020 creates a reference to subsection .400. The reference should be to subsection .600.
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	This ballot prevents the noncompliance disincentive of disgorgement. Additionally, the requirement of automatic stays for enforcement incentivizes continued noncompliance with the compact. The DRC/PCRC are the delegated bodies of the membership to determine compliance, because these committees are in a better position to understand the nuances of any particular noncompliance issue rather than the membership at large. To the extent that these committees may be acting arbitrarily or in error, the Board already serves as a forum for appeals. Oklahoma has concerns that penalizing noncompliant jurisdictions by merely requiring higher dues would permit that jurisdiction to substitute cash payments for noncompliance, at the cost of other jurisdictions’ injury. Moreover, it seems obvious that higher dues payments would be a lesser amount than the benefits of noncompliance to a delinquent jurisdiction. As a result, Oklahoma has serious concerns about the incentives this ballot would create.
ONTARIO	Undecided	Ontario suggests the sponsors clarify what "floor" means in the Intent section of this ballot and the definition of "fair notice" under R1555.300.
PENNSYLVANIA	Oppose
QUEBEC	Support	Quebec supports the intent of the ballot while noticing a reference which would need to be modified: Reference from section R1555.300.015 and R1555.300.20 should reference to sections R1555.600 or R1555.600.005. We also noted the absence of the word "days" in section R1555.500.
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Further clarification is needed to understand how and when impacted jurisdictions will receive any applicable tax owed to them where there is non-compliance in relation to the proper distribution of tax and/or the audit requirement
SOUTH DAKOTA	Oppose	This ballot strips the DRC of any power to resolve disputes of a jurisdiction not completing requirements of the IFTA Agreement. We believe there is a better way to handle this with putting limits and better DRC procedures in place than removing any discretion from the DRC.
Support: 4 Oppose: 9 Undecided: 4

IFTA Ballot Comments

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #11 - 2025

Address:

(480) 748 5648