IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #8 - 2026

Jurisdiction Position Comments
Support: 8
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 4

CALIFORNIA		 Oppose The Jurisdiction of California Opposes this ballot because the proposal does not clearly define “cancelled” accounts. California shares the same concerns brought up by other jurisdictions.

ILLINOIS		 Oppose Illinois shares the same concerns brought up by Kansas and Wyoming.

INDIANA		 Oppose Indiana Opposes. As written, it can be interpreted by member jurisdictions that canceled accounts need not, or should not be audited. The language as written can also encourage a carrier to repeatedly open an account, and cancel later, then repeating with other new accounts to avoid being audited. Indiana may consider if language was provided to clearly state that canceled accounts can and should be audited, and will be counted towards their requirement, if at least four consecutive quarters are audited.

Industry Advisory Committee		 No Comment.

KANSAS		 Oppose Kansas doesn’t support this ballot. 
Ballot #8 (removing canceled accounts from the total accounts) has a similarity to ballot #7 (3% to 2%). A double dipping effect in a mathematical sense. Even though there is no conflict in the verbiage in either ballot.  I do have a concern, if both measures pass. The combined effect would reduce the number of required audits to be completed each year more than either ballot’s supporters may realize.

Possible implications
  • Fewer audits overall, potentially significantly fewer required audits depending on the number of canceled accounts.
  • Lower workload for auditors, which some may see as efficiency.
  • Financially impacted, all jurisdictions could be affected financially (lower revenue being collected), some more than others.

KENTUCKY		 Support

MANITOBA		 Oppose

MARYLAND		 Support This change would slightly reduce the annual audit requirement, allowing Field Audit staff to dedicate more time to higher‑revenue audit activities.

MICHIGAN		 Undecided Michigan is undecided on this ballot.  The ballot lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a cancelled account or how cancellations should be determined. It is unclear whether a cancelled account refers to a licensee who cancels during the license year, a licensee who fails to renew, or a licensee who cancels and later seeks to be licensed again.

NEBRASKA		 Support Nebraska doesn't have issue with the cancelled accounts being removed from how the 3% is determined.  We don't see that it would impact our ability to audit cancelled accounts if we choose to.  

NEVADA		 Oppose NV agrees with Indiana.

NEW BRUNSWICK		 Undecided

NORTH CAROLINA		 Oppose North Carolina has one concern regarding this ballot: account statuses are not defined.

The license statuses are interpreted and applied differently by member jurisdictions. Defining and providing clear direction to member jurisdictions regarding the meaning of cancelled, suspended, and revoked accounts must be provided before North Carolina can support this ballot.

ONTARIO		 Support

PENNSYLVANIA		 Support The intent of the ballot is to reduce the audit requirement by excluding cancelled accounts from the number of audits calculation in A250. A cancelled account includes an account that failed to renew or an account that the taxpayer opted to cancel. This does not include accounts that are revoked or suspended. This change does not preclude any jurisdiction from auditing a cancelled account. The cancelled accounts would only be removed from the number of audits calculation similar to “new” accounts. To put this into perspective, in PA, approximately 1,000 accounts are cancelled each year, so this would reduce the audit requirement by 30 audits. PA intended to remove A260 in the draft of this ballot but that did not happen in the version submitted, although it will be removed in the next version.

QUEBEC		 Undecided The jurisdiction of Quebec acknowledge the potential link between the outcomes related to ballots 2026-07 and 2026-08.

We feel more clarity is required regarding the main intent of the ballot: is it to reduce the yearly audit threshold or is it to handle issues related to communications with licencees who cancelled their account ?

Without such clarity, we remain undecided on the matter.

RHODE ISLAND		 Support Reducing the required number of audits will allow states to focus on higher volume audits and improve the quality of the audit process.

SASKATCHEWAN		 Undecided The amendment may improve audit efficiency while still allowing jurisdictional discretion to pursue higher-risk inactive accounts where applicable. However, as currently worded it can be interpreted to mean that no jurisdiction is required to audit cancelled accounts. Wording clarification is required to clarify that cancelled accounts can and should be audited, but that they do not have to be included in the 3% calculation.

UTAH		 Support

WASHINGTON		 Support

WYOMING		 Oppose Wyoming does not support this ballot because we favor Ballot 7, which proposes a change from 3% to 2%.  We are concerned that if both Ballot 7 and Ballot 8 pass, the audit percentage would fall below 2%.  Consequently, we prioritize the passage of Ballot 7 over Ballot 8.
Support: 8
Oppose: 8
Undecided: 4

© Copyright 2026 IFTA, Inc. All Rights Reserved