IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #7 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Undecided
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
INDIANA	Support	Providing an option to conduct records reviews will increase a jurisdiction’s coverage, and increase compliance with IFTA recordkeeping requirements.
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Oppose
MANITOBA	Support
MICHIGAN	Oppose
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota supports this ballot. We believe that a timely records review can help educate a carrier and prevent unintended and unwanted errors. We feel that this ballot rewards jurisdictions for working with new carriers as they build relationships early on in the life of the carrier.
NEBRASKA	Support
NEW BRUNSWICK	Oppose	New Brunswick does not feel that a licensee education program provides the same level of assurance on the accuracy of the information reported as an audit.
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support	New Hampshire supports this and is a cosponser
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolinas has technical drafting and substantive concerns. North Carolina has previously expressed its substantive concerns, which most jurisdictions may be aware of based on our comments from the 2021 ballot version. However, due to how close this vote will be, North Carolina will focus this comment on the concerns it has regarding the technical language of this ballot. Ultimately, the technical concerns rise to such a level that North Carolina implores the jurisdictions that support this ballot to consider allowing another comment period after the ABM. Due to the length required to address all of these technical concerns, North Carolina is only able note our most significant concerns. North Carolina will actively work with the sponsors to address these concerns if given the opportunity to do so. Although we object to the overall purpose of the ballot, North Carolina is willing to support this ballot if the technical issues are addressed and the records reviews are limited to new licensees. North Carolina proposes that new Licensee are licensees who have recently applied for and received a license issued by their base jurisdiction; they are considered a New Licensee for 18 months. A records review could only be conducted within 12 months after a licensee first becomes licensed with their base jurisdiction. Technical Issues – Top 10 First, R248 and A500 overlap with the same subject matter regarding what constitutes a records review. Duplicative material is never advisable in drafting legislative or similar language. One of the reasons to avoid it is here: The substantive material across these sections do not match. For example, R248 1. and A500.010 refer to different periods (scope of less than a full year versus scope of less than a full reporting period). There are further discrepancies between these sections, raising other concerns. A simple internal reference from R248 to A500 would solve all these issues. Second, on Page 3, Line 37, the Audit Manual does not provide “guidelines,” it provides requirements or rules that must be complied with if a jurisdiction wants credit for a records review. This distinction is important as it should never be perceived that the governing documents are optional unless it is clearly intended. Third, the internal citations to the governing documents are inconsistent, including not capitalizing “Audit Manual.” These issues are throughout the ballot and need be addressed so that the citations are uniform. Fourth, the language stating that a record reviews “is not required to compare records” is not clear. Can a jurisdiction review the records or not? Allow it or forbid it. This language accomplishes neither. Fifth, there is nothing stopping a jurisdiction from converting a record review into an audit after it reviews the record keeping system. All of the “intent” language beginning on page 5, line 101 is non-binding. Therefore, reference to the 180 days assessment immunity period is illusory and provides motor carriers a false sense of what can occur after a records review is initiated by a jurisdiction. Issues six through ten have a similar fatal flaw: the attempt to streamline the language by incorporating A240, A320, and A460 simply cannot work. The records review requirements needs to have its own language, distinct and separate from audit requirements. Sixth (incorporating A240), A510.300 completely undercuts A510.100.005 regarding who can perform a records review. This issue is particularly troubling. A240, in the context of records reviews, requires persons completing records review to: (1) be qualified based on the member jurisdiction’s personnel guidelines; (2) conduct themselves in a manner promoting cooperation and good relations with licensees and member jurisdictions; (3) give all licensees and member jurisdictions fair consideration; and (4) maintain proficiency in IFTA auditing (records reviews?) by providing training opportunities through internal or external training sources. What is wrong with these requirements? Should these not be applied to everyone performing a records review? Why should “personnel processing Licensee applications” be exempt from these requirements? Was this intended to remove the word “auditor” from A240? If yes, the ballot attempts to re-write A240 without doing so. Otherwise, what hole did we just create here? Seventh (incorporating A460), A510.100.025 provides that the written report must be in compliance with certain sections of A460. The language and the lead-in to A460 prevents this compliance. The lead-in provides that a copy of the audit report must be kept in the audit file. Should the records review still be maintained? If so, where? It is not clear through this incorporation. This too results in an attempt to re-write language without doing so. Eighth, (incorporating A320), A510.100.025 provides that A320.200 and A320.700 applies to record reviews. These make explicit references to an “audit period” and an “audit report.” These are not audits; these are records review. This, again, results in an attempt to re-write language without doing so. Ninth (incorporating A460), A510.100.025, strikes reference to an “audit period” found in A460.100.50. This is in direct contradiction with the attempts identified in #8 above to maintain the use of the word “audit” within the context of records reviews. This makes the underlying incorporation of audit requirements inconsistent across the ballot changes. Tenth (incorporating A460), A510.100.025 excludes an auditor’s evaluation of adequacy of records under A460.500.030. The entire purpose of a records review is to evaluate the system of record. This ballot requires a document review to comply with parts of A460.500, including "[i]dentify[ing] source documents" and "[i]dentify[ing] the information in source documents." Therefore, this evaluation is necessary when the auditor is assessing the adequacy of documents under A460.500. If any jurisdiction is still reading this, we thank you. North Carolina remains open to helping the sponsors address all issues to make this the best ballot we can for all the member jurisdictions.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support	North Dakota is a sponsor of this ballot and supports the ballot. North Dakota uses the record review as an educational tool for all or our new carriers. This ballot is optional for the jurisdictions to utilize a record review program or not. This ballot will help the jurisdictions to reach more carriers to increase compliance, decrease errors and help all jurisdictions receive the correct tax amount due. This ballot outlines the minimum requirements needed for the record review to qualify for an audit credit. We encourage all jurisdictions to support this ballot and give those jurisdictions who choose the ability to use this credit.
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support	PA supports this ballot, as we have a very comprehensive, effective, and efficient records review program that we have employed for 10+ years with great success. Our only concern would be whether other jurisdictions' programs would be satisfactory to our jurisdiction and the IFTA community in general. As long as these records reviews are treated seriously and not taken advantage of, and are periodically reviewed by the Peer Review Compliance Audits, we support this ballot.
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Oppose	Even though this ballot is optional we are opposed. Quebec has a record review program for new licensees (up to one year) to help them put together a compliant records. We believe this brings a great help to them so we can't count them as audits.
SASKATCHEWAN	Support
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	South Dakota is a sponsor of this ballot and supports the ballot. South Dakota uses the review as an educational tool for our new carriers. We support this ballot as it gives the options for jurisdictions to use the review program or not. The ballot is also written to allow jurisdictions to set up a review program and have the latitude to make the review program how they want to use it. The ballot lays out the minimum requirements to be reviewed using the current audit requirements. If the requirements are met they will qualify for credit. The ballot also does not stop a jurisdiction from doing more than the minimum. The ballot does not require a jurisdiction to reduce the number of full audits completed. The minimum requirements will also allow the Peer Compliance review team to verify reviews like audits. We encourage all jurisdictions to support this ballot and give the jurisdictions who choose to use the tool credit. The review gives jurisdictions the ability to help all jurisdictions get the correct amount of tax at the correct time by educating the carrier.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Support
WASHINGTON	Support
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided	As long as this was optional WV would possibly agree.
WYOMING	Support
Support: 22 Oppose: 4 Undecided: 3

IFTA Ballot Comments

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #7 - 2022

Address:

(480) 748-5763