IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #5 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Undecided
ALBERTA	Undecided	Alberta is not opposed to the concept but has concerns with the use of the word penalty as the ballot refers to "interest penalty". If the intent is to compensate jurisdictions for the time value of money lost on amounts being received late resulting from another jurisdiction not transmitting data to the clearinghouse on time then the word penalty should be removed. Alberta also believes there should also be exceptions for extenuating circumstances and has concerns with the amount of extra work this could cause for small amounts.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
CALIFORNIA	Support	In favor of the concept. Would this be optional to the Jurisdictions to determine if they want to pursue the interest owed and also have the authority to consider de minimis and not cost effective to purse? Will it be a finding later during review if a jurisdiction decides to not pursue?
IDAHO	Undecided	Not opposed to the concept, but would like more information regarding exactly how this would work logistically.
INDIANA	Support
KANSAS	Undecided	There needs to be an out for extenuating circumstances?? Kansas has of yet to experiene any issues, but if we did, I assume it would be something completely out of our control. Side note:The phrase 'Interest Penalty' will take some getting used to, we tend not to use those 2 words together. ' Assessment' could be used alternatively. Overall, discussion at the ABM might be helpful.
KENTUCKY	Support
MAINE	Undecided	Maine finds the language in this ballot unclear as to the amount interest is to be calculated on. We also think it could conflict with current clearinghouse proration practices. Maine thinks the intent of this ballot could be better served as part of the clearinghouse access agreement.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Undecided	The process as outlined seems rigid and could take up valuable resources that are better put to use elsewhere. Minnesota would like to better understand the need as it exists today and the impact this could potentially have on jurisdictions.
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska is unclear on the specifics and welcomes the discussion at the annula meeting.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Undecided	There may be extending circumstances when a jurisdiction may not be abe to pay a transmittal on time. Would there be a provision for these types of circumstances?
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	North Carolina recommends that references to "penalties" be removed. North Carolina, and many other States, make a distinction between penalties and interest. Further, the Agreement also makes this distinction. See for example R1210.300 separating the categories between penalties and interest. Further, it is not required (or best drafting practices) to place the identical proposed language in three places. Once in the Agreement or other document will suffice. Finally, and structurally, it does not belong within R2120. Although it is related to timely upload transmittal data, the assessment of interest is a distinct concept. Therefore, it merits its own section. As amended (with a few tweaks): "R2130 INTEREST ASSESSED FOR UNTIMELY SUBMITTED TRANSMITTAL DATA Participating Members failing to timely upload any Transmittal Data per the Funds Netting Calendar will be assessed an interest penalty at the prevailing IFTA, Inc. interest rate per in accordance with Articles of Agreement, Agreement Section R1230. The participating members shall be required to pay interest to each jurisdiction . . . ." Note - North Carolina would like to hear more from other jurisdictions about concerns they have with calculating the interest owed.
NORTH DAKOTA	Undecided
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Undecided	The language of this ballot is not clear. Need more information. We join Maine's comment.
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Require more information on how interest would be distributed, proration of interest, interest due date, potential to waive interest due to unforeseen circumstances, and the current number and size of jurisdictions that are not compliant.
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
TENNESSEE	Oppose
VIRGINIA	Undecided	Open to further discussion and consideration, but first impression is that this seems like a rigid solution to a rare problem, which could perhaps be better addressed (and include consideration of mitigating circumstances) under existing processes for program compliance and dispute resolution.
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Warrants further conversation with member jurisdictions.
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided	Unsure
WYOMING	Undecided	We would like to hear discussion on this ballot before making a decision.
Support: 12 Oppose: 1 Undecided: 15

IFTA Ballot Comments

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #5 - 2022

Address:

(480) 748-5763