IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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

3rd Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2023

Jurisdiction Position Comments




Support Connecticut continues to support this ballot and appreciates the efforts made to modify the ballot based on the comments recieved from the previous commentary periods and the input received during the regional meetings.


Oppose After following the evolution of Ballot #3, reading the IFTA QA for Ballot 3-2023 that was mailed to Commissioners on 10/31/2023, and finding syntax errors and confusing language in the draft (also noted by North Carolina in their comment), Illinois does not see any value added to justify changing the IFTA Agreement that all fifty-eight jurisdictions must uphold. Until there is a good explanation for justifying the changes (other than R1020) and at least until a more comprehensibly constructed draft is presented, our position is to oppose the ballot. Illinois stands ready to work with IFTA Inc. and member jurisdictions going forward to address the issues raised in this Ballot.

Support Indiana supports this ballot. However, IN agrees with other jurisdictions in that the recordkeeping requirements should remain as they currently are regarding fuel to avoid confusion. We also agree that the language in the ballot could be made clearer. We support the statement that the tax is imposed on the consumption of fuel by applying the tax rate to distance.

Support Iowa appreciates the discouse between members and the responses from IFTA.  We are supportive of this measure because we understand this change needs to be made based on the law passed in Indiana. At the same time, we strongly encourage all IFTA jurisdictions that if this issue arises in their legislatures that they support EV fuel collection at the point of distribution rather than usage.  We again encourage IFTA to develop model legislation to this end.






Support Nevada will support this Ballot to help with moving forward. 

We also feel that the record keeping requirements should remain the same as they currently are now regardless of the fuel type and how it is calculated from one jurisdiction to another.  Otherwise, it will be confusing for the taxpayers to know when to keep records and when not to keep records.

We do agree with North Carolina regarding some of the language still being unclear and will be confusing for our taxpayers to understand.  We like their proposed language has it is a lot clearer and easier to understand.

We also agree with South Dakota regarding the need for this ballot and believe that we as members of IFTA need to work towards a solution to standardize the taxation of alternative type fuels.  To help all jurisdictions use the same taxation methodology as we do now with other fuel types.



Support The changes addressed many of the concerns raised by North Carolina and other member jurisdictions. Therefore, North Carolina generally supports the ballot. However, North Carolina would like to raise additional concerns with the ballot, which North Carolina encourages the sponsor to review and otherwise consider adopting the changes recommended in this comment.
First, the ballot uses language that attempts to improve clarity by repeating substantive requirements or exemptions. This is done four times in the ballot with the sentence beginning as follows: "If any qualified motor fuel vehicle of the same fuel type travels in any other jurisdiction that imposes tax on the consumption of fuel by applying a tax rate to net taxable fuel, then . . . ." This raises issues regarding whether the repeated language is attempting to create an additional requirement or exemption. This should be avoided under the statutory cannon of "Rule to Avoid Surplusage," which provides that every word and every provision should be given effect, and none should be ignored and none should be given interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence. North Carolina does not see the repeated language as necessary, and thus the additional sentence injects ambiguity where the opposite was intended. The language should be removed. By removing the language, not only does it make the ballot more clear, it also makes it easier to read by significantly reducing the volume of changes.
Second, the following phrase that appears four times is unclear: "qualified motor vehicles that only travel in jurisdictions that [] impose a tax on the consumption of fuel solely by applying a tax rate to distance . . . ." Which fuel? All fuel? Or only the fuel type used by the qualified motor vehicle? The latter is intended by the sponsor, and the ballot should be amended to make this clear. North Carolina notes that similar ambiguity issues with the next sentence: "If any qualified motor vehicle of the same fuel type travels in any other jurisdiction that imposes tax on the consumption of fuel . . . ." Which fuel? The fuel type used by the qualified motor vehicle?
Third, North Carolina has concerns regarding the use of the term "net taxable fuel." This term is not defined, and not otherwise used in the Articles of Agreement except for the language proposed by this ballot. Although it is referenced in the Procedures Manual, the use of the term is only clear within the context of how many member jurisdictions have constructed their return. Taxable fuel is taxable fuel and is independent of the tax rate calculation. Adding "net" in front of this phrase does not necessarily classify taxable fuel as subject to a certain rate calculation methodology. Absent additional clarifying language, the question becomes, in interpreting this new phrase: net of what? As this is a developing area with only one state using this tax rate calculation methodology, it is foreseeable that this phrase can become more problematic. For example, when combined with the first concern from above, it may be interpreted that the sentence that contains this phrase is indeed governing a distinct issue. North Carolina understands that the sponsor is attempting to create a phrase or term that distinguishes applying a tax rate to distance from the method for how member jurisdictions have historically calculated the use of fuel. North Carolina is hesitant that "net taxable fuel" is the best way to characterize this tax calculation methodology absent defining the term or drafting, as North Carolina proposes below, in such a way that it is not required.
Fourth, P550 is an 'all-or-nothing' requirement. P550 requires licensee to "maintain complete records of all motor fuel purchased, received, or used in the conduct of its business . . . ." Now the ballot has introduced exceptions to the 'all-or-nothing' requirement. The issue becomes when the motor carrier begins to operate or ceases to operate in jurisdictions that taxes based on tax rate to the taxable gallons (volume), when do the record keeping requirements apply? P550 is silent and provides no guidance for these licensees on how to comply with P550. Please see North Carolina's most recent comments regarding its concerns on this issue. One solution is to base the record keeping requirements on the reporting period. In other words, if a licensee operates in a non-tax-rate-to-distance jurisdiction during a reporting period, all record keeping requirements apply.
Finally, North Carolina is concerned that this ballot fails to amend other impacted provisions and thus fails take a comprehensive approach for making consistent changes in the IFTA governing documents. For example, the exemption created under P550 creates inconsistencies with P560. P560 requires licensees to make summaries available for audit that include "the distance traveled by and the fuel placed into each vehicle in the fleet during the quarter . . . ."  Also, the ballot fails to amend P710.200, which requires IFTA tax returns to include the "[t]otal number of gallons or liters of motor fuel used by the licensee in operation of qualified motor vehicles . . . ." Finally, P720.500 requires (through P700) that jurisdictions capture: (1) the taxable gallons or liters; (2) tax paid gallons or liters; and (3) net taxable gallons or liters. If the ballot moves forward with amending P720.350, North Carolina is not sure why corresponding changes would also need to be made to P710.200 and P720.500. The same concern is also applicable to the changes made to P1040.300 -- why are conforming changes not also made to P1040.350 through P1040.450.? All these omissions need to be addressed.
The following is proposed language that address some of the above concerns.
[Existing R820 language] A motor carrier is not required to report fuel placed in the supply storage unit of a qualified motor vehicle if the vehicle exclusively traveled in jurisdictions using fuel for which the motor fuel use tax is either not imposed or imposed by applying a tax rate to distance.
The requirements in this section do not apply to a licensee maintaining records for a qualified motor vehicle that, during the reporting period, exclusively traveled in jurisdictions using fuel for which the motor fuel use tax is either not imposed or imposed by applying a tax rate to distance.

The reported fleet fuel consumption factor for each licensee unless licensee only operated qualified motor vehicles that exclusively traveled in jurisdictions using fuel for which the motor fuel use tax is either not imposed or imposed by applying a tax rate to distance;



Undecided Ohio has concerns about the record keeping provisions. Ohio believes it is generally important for taxpayers to maintain complete records.  Ohio routinely educates taxpayers on current recordkeeping requirements and does not want to add confusion to this process. Like South Dakota, we question the need for this ballot.

Undecided Ontario appreciates the supporting materials sent out by the Board and Executive Director on October 31, 2023. While Ontario is generally supportive of the approach in the ballot, we will review the ballot further alongside the memo and Qs & As.

Support The legal dept opinion: In the proposed amendment to section P720.350, we believe it would be more accurate to replacre the word "section" with "subsection".
"...then the exemption from the requirements of this subsection will not apply and the average fuel consumption factor must be reported". to clarify that the proposed exemption applies only to P720.350 and not to the entirety of section P720.
i.e. the requirement to indicate the average fuel consumption factor in the quarterly report. -While we are of the opinion that the context surrounding the addition still allows for a narrower scope of the exemption, we believe that this amendment would provide clarity. Note that "subsection" is a term used in IFTA (see R1600.100, R1620.15 and several comments).

Support Support

Support We do thank the Board of Directors for making the wording change. This change has helped narrow the exemption. As South Dakota reads the ballot, the exemption will only apply when a fuel type is only used in a jurisdiction that either does not collect a fuel tax on that type of fuel or only collects the fuel tax on miles driven.  

South Dakota does still question the need for this ballot. We do believe that we as members of IFTA need to work towards a solution to standardize the taxation of alternative type fuels. This will help all jurisdictions use the same taxation methodology as we do now with other fuels. However, South Dakota will support this ballot to give industry and jurisdictions a roadmap to move forward. 
Support: 21
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 2