IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #8 - 2022

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALABAMA	Support
ALBERTA	Support
ARKANSAS	Support
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Support
IDAHO	Support
KANSAS	Support
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support	Has the definition of alternative fuels as defined by a Canadian institution been considered?
MARYLAND	Undecided	Maryland recognizes the importance of identifying alternative fuels as propellants, however, we're still in discussion regarding the possibilty of defining electrity as a motor fuel. We also recognize that electric vehicles are here and in operation, and the need to promptly address a viable solution.
MICHIGAN	Support
MINNESOTA	Support	Minnesota supports the ballot. We would like to see greater definition around alternative fuels and cooperation between IFTA and jurisdictions to develop best practices around taxation and record keeping.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Support	The proposed definition of motor fuel is too detailed and some examples may imply an exclusion of fuels. For example, consider "blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline." Does this language, by implication, exclude blends of 85% or less of alcohol with gasoline? Although "such as" should be interpreted to mean by example and without limitation, the list of examples may create unnecessary ambiguity. Further, North Carolina is concerned whether this definition of alternative fuel has been formally adopted by the U.S. Department of Energy. It was not able to find the citation to a statute or the Federal Register. If IFTA is going to adopt a definition in its entirety from a government agency, it should be one that is not easily subject to change and can be relied upon in a future where the ‘next fuel’ remains undetermined. North Carolina suggests a simpler, more succinct definition: "Motor Fuels means all fuels or energy placed in the fuel supply storage unit to propel a qualified motor vehicle." Also, motor fuels is a defined term. Therefore, adding "or other fuels as defined in R239" is unnecessary. See page 3, line 14; and page 3, line 19. It could cause confusion because of the expansive nature of the motor fuel definition (i.e. there are no other fuels other than motor fuels). Finally, although North Carolina is generally in support for this ballot, it cannot support it with immediate effect. As may be experienced by other jurisdictions, North Carolina’s IFTA enabling statute does not contemplate allowing North Carolina to enter an agreement (IFTA Articles of Agreement) that collects taxes from motor carriers related to fuel such as electricity. This would require a technical change (with a very high likelihood of passing) by the North Carolina legislature. North Carolina recommends that jurisdictions review their statute allowing it to enter into the Agreement to determine whether those jurisdictions need to make similar changes. North Carolina requests an effective date for January 1, 2024.
NORTH DAKOTA	Support
ONTARIO	Support
OREGON	Support
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Support
QUEBEC	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided
SOUTH CAROLINA	Support
SOUTH DAKOTA	Support	As the industry moves to alternative fuels, it is time for IFTA to put a definition in place that encompasses those fuels. I like that using the definition from the US Department of Energy. This will allow jurisdictions to work together to find an acceptable solution to the taxation of these emerging fuels. This also helps make it a uniform approach to identifying the possible future fuel sources.
TENNESSEE	Support
VIRGINIA	Undecided
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Warrants further discussion with member jurisdictions.
WEST VIRGINIA	Undecided
WYOMING	Undecided	We would like to hear discussion on this ballot before making a decision.
Support: 22 Oppose: 0 Undecided: 6

IFTA Ballot Comments

1st Period Comments on BALLOT #8 - 2022

Address:

(480) 748-5763