IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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

FTPBP #5 • 2026

1st Period comments

Jurisdiction feedback for FTPBP #5.

18Support
0Oppose
1Undecided
JurisdictionPositionComments
CALIFORNIACALIFORNIASupportThe Jurisdiction of California Supports this ballot, which would clarify the language in IFTA Audit Manual Section A250 to the practice of utilizing the prior year’s account information on the Annual Report as the basis for determining the audit requirement for the current year. This new language will provide a consistent way for jurisdictions to determine the correct audit requirements.  In addition, we agree with North Carolina’s comment to change the proposition “in” to “for”.
ILLINOISILLINOISSupportIllinois supports the ballot with the change that North Carolina mentions. The annual reports are filed for the preceeding year, not in the preceeding year.
INDIANAINDIANASupport
Industry Advisory CommitteeIndustry Advisory CommitteeNo Comment
KANSASKANSASSupportUpdating the language will provide clarity regarding use the prior year annual report account information to calculate the 3% audit requirement for the current year. 
KENTUCKYKENTUCKYSupport
MANITOBAMANITOBASupport
MARYLANDMARYLANDSupportMaryland has interpreted and applied this provision as the basis for determining the annual 3 percent audit requirement. For example, the audit requirement for 2025 is calculated using the number of accounts reported in the 2024 Annual Report.
MICHIGANMICHIGANSupportMichigan supports the ballot with the change that North Carolina suggests.  The annual reports are filed for the preceeding year.
NEVADANEVADASupport
NEW BRUNSWICKNEW BRUNSWICKSupport
NORTH CAROLINANORTH CAROLINASupportNorth Carolina has no objections to the ballot. However, North Carolina encourages the sponsor to reconsider the use of the preposition "in." The ballot presupposes that every member jurisdiction files the report timely or at least in the year that it is supposed to be filed. In other words, the numbers used to determine the number of required audits should not depend on whether the annual report was "filed in the preceding year" but should be determined based on the report “for” the preceding year. 
ONTARIOONTARIOSupport
PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIASupport
QUEBECQUEBECUndecidedThe jurisdiction of Quebec supports the intent of the ballot. However, we feel more clarity is required regarding the need for a retroactive application up to 2000.
RHODE ISLANDRHODE ISLANDSupport
SASKATCHEWANSASKATCHEWANSupportThe amendment does not establish a new audit requirement but instead aligns the wording of Section A250 with the established interpretation and application that has reportedly been in place since approximately 2000.
UTAHUTAHSupport
WASHINGTONWASHINGTONSupport
WYOMINGWYOMINGSupportWyoming supports the ballot. The passing of this ballot ensures that the plan remains consistent with the practices that have been in place for many years.
© Copyright 2026 IFTA, Inc. All Rights Reserved