IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2025

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
Support: 18 Oppose: 5 Undecided: 2
ALBERTA	Oppose	Alberta supports a review of the audit requirement but would like to see an approach supported by evidence rather than an arbitrary reduction to the audit percentage. Alberta would like to see a comprehensive review of the audit percentage requirement to find the optimal amount necessary to ensure a satisfactory level of compliance. Alternative methodologies, including a data driven approach, should also be explored.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support	BC supports this ballot: - Allows jurisdictions to use audit resources more efficiently (e.g. dedicate more resources to higher risk audits of other tax types) - Better supports jurisdictions in meeting audit targets
CALIFORNIA	Support	California continues to support this re-submitted ballot proposal, which is to reduce the minimum audit requirement from three percent (3%) to two percent (2%) per year. By amending the audit requirement, it would allow IFTA Jurisdictions to keep an active and compliant membership within IFTA, Inc., while maintaining carrier compliance through current audit coverage. This amendment will benefit all jurisdictions by creating more time for jurisdictions to use their audit resources efficiently. Jurisdictions would be able to pursue more investigative audit methods, conduct more complex audits, and conduct team audits across State lines. In addition, jurisdictions may focus on a robust audit selection to increase compliance and fuel tax recovery on behalf of all member jurisdictions.
CONNECTICUT	Support	Connecticut supports this re-submitted ballot proposal, which is to reduce the minimum audit requirement from three percent (3%) to two percent (2%) per year. A 2% audit requirement will still far exceed the audit coverage rate of other tax types audited by jurisdictions, thereby ensuring that compliance will continue.
ILLINOIS	Support
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Support	Kansas supports this updated ballot as the 2% requirement would allow over 90% of the jurisdictions that ability to meet the goal at a time when a majority of jurisdictions are struggling due to increase in registrants, employee turnover, unable to compete with private sector and other factors outside the control of the judications despite their best efforts. Some jurisdictions do not want to support this ballot because they want a study first to determine if lowering the requirement would still provide the same benefit as the current 3% requirement. While a study maybe prove useful, nevertheless, action needs to be taken now to ensure that all jurisdictions can meet their goal as no jurisdiction or carriers benefits if other jurisdictions are eventually forced out of IFTA, which would defeat the purpose of IFTA in the first place. Besides, any jurisdiction that can meet or exceed the 3 % goal is free do so, even those that are joint shops; nothing prevents them from doing more than 2%.
KENTUCKY	Support	Should help jurisdicitions that struggle with staffing shortages.
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Support	Maryland supports this ballot and agrees with California's comments. Additionally, a 2% requirement does not preclude jurisdictions from exceeding this requirement.
MASSACHUSETTS	Support	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts supports this re-submitted ballot proposal which is to reduce the minimum audit requirement from three percent (3%) to two percent (2%) per year. Amending the audit quota requirement would allow all IFTA jurisdictions to be compliant while allowing for a more strategic approach to both audit selection and assignment. In addition, this re-submitted ballot would allow for quality audits with educational components for licensees resulting in better voluntary compliance in the future.
MICHIGAN	Support
NEVADA	Undecided	Nevada supports 2% threshold, vs the original 1%. However, Nevada is still concerned with being a joint shop and conducting IRP audits at a 3%. Additionally, if Nevada is auditing at 3% IFTA and collecting for other jurisdictions that are only auditing at 2% IFTA, this would not be balanced. A study should be conducted to determine a true audit percentage and petition IRP to be reduced as well.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	We agree with Alberta's comment.
NEW JERSEY	Support	New Jersey agrees with California and supports this ballot.
NEW YORK	Support	New York supports this resubmitted ballot proposal. A more strategic approach toward audit selection results in a higher percentage of quality audits and promotes the taxpayer experience by reducing unnecessary enforcement engagement. We believe a 2% audit rate is more indicative of achieving this goal and identifying a higher percentage of noncompliant licensees.
NEWFOUNDLAND	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	North Carolina supports a data driven decision on whether to change the number of audits required to be completed by jurisdictions. The potential impacts on jurisdictions, revenue, and the industry itself are too great not to have a well-researched and well-grounded solution to what many jurisdictions have claimed is a significant issue. Absent the ability to determine these impacts, changing the Audit Manual and reducing required audits is concerningly arbitrary.
ONTARIO	Support	Ontario supports this proposal to require jurisdictions to complete audits on 2% of IFTA accounts each year. A 2% threshold strikes the right balance between efficiency and oversight. Ontario would also support research into an evidence-based approach to determining a long-term audit threshold, as PEI has suggested, with 2% as an interim measure.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Oppose	Prince Edward Island opposes this ballot. We reiterate that we are not opposed to changing the percentage of accounts audited. We are opposed to arbitrarily picking a number to replace one. We are tasked with auditing. Auditors routinely choose sample sizes to achieve a desired confidence level. There is no reason that IFTA could not hire a consultant (CPA firm or statistician) to review our overall account population and determine a sample size that achieves a desired confidence level. That way we would have something to turn to in the manual to explain why we audit the number of carriers we do. In this regard, we feel the appropriate path forward is to have IFTA hire a consultant to review our sampling methodology, and advise on whether it is meeting our needs. This could look at the number of accounts audited, but could also look at whether "accounts" is the proper metric to sample. Sampling a % of total accounts incentivizes jurisdictions to focus on smaller/easier accounts instead of larger accounts. A risk based assessment is probably the appropriate approach, and may involve a number of accounts, trucks, miles driven, compiance history, etc.
QUEBEC	Support	The jurisdiction of Quebec supports the current ballot, which covers issues encountered by many jurisdictions: - Staff shortage and staff allocation; - Hours allocation per audit case; - Audit risk assessment and identification. While the jurisdiction of Quebec acknowledges the stance of other jurisdictions regarding the need for a study, such process must be analyzed from a cost-benefit perspective, which the jurisdiction of Quebec has its reservations.
RHODE ISLAND	Support	The Rhode Island Division of Taxation supports Ballot #4. Overall, the reduction in the quantity of audits will allow states to improve quality and achieve more consistent results for all member juridisctions. In specific, approving Ballot #4 will have the following benefits: Reducing the required number of audits will allow states to focus and improve the quality of the audit process. With less focus on the audit count, the audit staff will be able to improve the audit selection quality. A focus on quality audits also allows for taxpayer education and improved voluntary compliance.
VIRGINIA	Oppose	Virginia opposes the ballot for the reasons articulated by North Carolina.
WEST VIRGINIA	Support
WISCONSIN	Undecided	Wisconsin would be in support of this ballot but would also like to see some type of credit/requirement for educational initiatives. A requirement to offer training session(s) ,these could include but not limited to a yearly seminar, monthly meetings with the a goal to improve overall compliance with carriers. Along with records reviews being the norm for new carriers.
Support: 18 Oppose: 5 Undecided: 2

IFTA Ballot Comments

2nd Period Comments on FTPBP #4 - 2025

Address:

(480) 748 5648