IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #6 - 2026

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
Support: 5 Oppose: 3 Undecided: 9
CALIFORNIA	Undecided	The Jurisdiction of California is Undecided with this ballot as it is written for the submission of the proposal. California supports the intent of the ballot and agrees that there should be clarification to the definition of “Base Jurisdiction” and as it applies to leased vehicles. However, we agree with the other jurisdictions who voiced that the language in the ballot should be revised to indicate the party responsible for reporting to IFTA.
ILLINOIS	Undecided	Illinois sees that the ballot scope covers many angles that need more consideration and analysis.
INDIANA	Oppose	Indiana does not support the ballot as written. The language no longer indicates who is responsible in the event the contract is silent regarding who should report to IFTA under R530 .200. That language should still be included. We audit many carriers who hire independent contractors or owner operators. Often there is a contract, however, quite often, the contract is silent as to who is to report to IFTA. The contract may mention who pays to IFTA, but not who reports. There is a difference.
Industry Advisory Committee	Oppose	Industry generally supports this ballot, with the exception of the language requiring that a copy of the lessee’s fuel tax license be retained under a long-term lease. A long-term lease should not be treated as a short-term rental. Given the nature of the arrangement, the following statement should be struck from the ballot proposal in proposed section R510.200.010: “The lessor shall retain a copy of the lessee’s IFTA fuel tax license which is valid for the term of the rental.”
KENTUCKY	Support
MANITOBA	Support
MARYLAND	Oppose	This proposed ballot does not identify which party is responsible for reporting IFTA activity when the contract between involved parties—particularly in independent contractor arrangements—does not clearly assign this responsibility.
MICHIGAN	Undecided	The revision to R212.050 does not clarify whether the registered vehicle must belong to the licensee or whether it may be owned by a lessor. R212.200 continues to be an issue for all jurisdictions. Licensees often station vehicles in other jurisdictions and, in some cases, fail to report mileage to the base jurisdiction for extended periods. Michigan has consistently relied on R212.100 as the primary basis for licensing a carrier, since vehicle registration is not required when applying for a license. Additionally, travel cannot be restricted to the base jurisdiction without potentially conflicting with the R150 “one license and one base jurisdiction” principle.
NEBRASKA	Undecided	Nebraska is undecided and is concerned about the implicants of the update to R212.100 as well as IN's comment regarding being silent to who is responsible for reporting for under independent contractors section R530.200
NEVADA	Support	NV currently requests a consolidation letter if the lease does not specify who is responsible for reporting and paying IFTA. Although, all jurisdictions may not have this in place, it would be beneficial to have this language clearly stated.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NORTH CAROLINA	Undecided	North Carolina is currently undecided based on the current ballot language. North Carolina is open to considering alternative versions of this ballot to resolve the lease issue as it relates to determining the base jurisdiction. North Carolina has proposed language below. First, North Carolina is not clear why the sponsor re-wrote most of Article V to address an issue that could be resolved in R212. North Carolina concedes that R510, R520, and R530 could be re-written for clarity, but adding exceptions to R212 in each of these sections is not the best way to achieve the intent of the sponsor. Second, North Carolina is unable to determine the purpose of some of the modifications to R212. For example, in the age of digital records and the outsourcing maintenance of those records, it is unclear why the sponsor kept as a condition of determining the base jurisdiction that the records must be “maintained” in the base jurisdiction while removing where the records must be made available. This is the opposite of what North Carolina would expect from R212.100. North Carolina asks the sponsor to consider the following re-write of R212 (underlines and strikethroughs are not applied): R212 Base Jurisdiction means the member jurisdiction that meets all the following: .050 If the applicant or licensee operates at least one qualified motor vehicle that is not leased, where one qualified motor vehicle is registered with a government agency of the member jurisdiction; .100 Where the operational control and records of the applicant or licensee’s qualified motor vehicles can be made available; and .200 Where some travel is accrued by qualified motor vehicles within the fleet. The commissioners of two or more affected jurisdictions may allow a person to consolidate several fleets that would otherwise be based in two or more jurisdictions.
PENNSYLVANIA	Undecided	Our concern from the Audits perspective is whether our jurisdiction would be responsible for informing a taxpayer that, since their leased vehicles are registered in another state, they need to be IFTA registered in that state. Would we then treat the vehicles as non-qualifying to remove the activity reported? The account would presumably not be able to report the activity prior to the date they register, so they would basically be getting a pass for the activity for that timeframe. Would the alternative be to audit the activity as it was reported, instead of removing the activity, then report the taxpayer to the other jurisdiction so that they can get the taxpayer registered in that jurisdiction? We would want to confirm the activity was reported, but does it matter which jurisdiction it is reported in?
QUEBEC	Undecided	The jurisdiction of Quebec hasn't completed its legal analysis of the ballot. Therefore, we remain undecided on the matter.
RHODE ISLAND	Support
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	This ballot appears to be attempting to resolve an actual issue, however it is changing the framework from a base jurisdiction to a split base jurisdiction/contract rule which increases complexity, and does not cover when there is a contract but it is silent on fuel reporting and paying responsibilities. SK does not support the ballot in its current format, but does agree changes are needed to clarify requirements for leases. Question1: Do these changes create an opportunity to structure leases to pay tax in a lower tax jurisdiction? Currently with the base jurisdiction being based on vehicle registration that is difficult to determine. Question2: The amendments do not speak to who is responsible if the written contract is silent on who is responsible for reporting and paying. This would need to be clarified prior to SK supporting this ballot.
WASHINGTON	Undecided	Needs further analysis and discussion.
Support: 5 Oppose: 3 Undecided: 9

© Copyright 2026 IFTA, Inc. All Rights Reserved