IFTA, Inc. International Fuel Tax Association

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2024

Jurisdiction	Position	Comments
ALBERTA	Undecided	Generally supportive of the concept, but have a few concerns with the ballot as written, It is unclear what happens in the event a penalty is assessed and the respective jurisdiction refuses to pay it. Does interest accrue? Does it impact the jurisdiction's membership? There should be the possibility of a waiver or cancellation of the penalty if the failure of the member jurisdiction to transmit the data as and when required occurred as a result of circumstances that were out of the jurisdiction's control. Such circumstances could include fires and floods within government offices, civil disturbances, or public health emergencies. There is also a lack of a proposal that would permit the fee to not be charged in the event a transmittal was late on account of the Clearinghouse being inoperative at the time data is to be transmitted, i.e., due to the fault of IFTA, Inc., as opposed to the member jurisdiction.
BRITISH COLUMBIA	Oppose
IDAHO	Oppose
ILLINOIS	Undecided	Do we really need this? Has it been considered to refer a jurisdiction that fails to comply with transmittal requirements to the Dispute Resolution Committee? Specific ballot issues: Line 9, add “to” between “timely” and “IFTA”. Line 12,“Graduated late fee for failing . . .” Lines 13-15, Replace the word “offense” with “occurrence” Line 16, “One exception will be granted for a lifetime.” Whose lifetime? We recommend a reasonable cause-type exception instead. Also, consider rewarding compliance by not keeping forever penalties. (i.e., after 36 consecutive months of timely uploaded transmittals, the clock starts over.) Line18, “The fee(s) shall offender would be be billed with the Annual Dues invoice.” Question: If a jurisdiction is late with transmittal data each month, will they first hear about the penalty with their Annual Dues Invoice – which will include fees of $53,500 ($1K, + $2.5K + $5K x 10 = $50K)? Line 20 & 21,Need explicit direction for how the fees shall be used, not suggestions. Line 23, Do we need this line since line 18 speaks to this? Using the term “Fiscal year” complicates things. The Annual Dues Invoice was sent 3/31. Does the fiscal year end prior to 3/31? Delete lines 25 & 26. For change to P1040 consider cross-referencing, rather than re-stating the fees. So: “Failure to timely upload transmittal data to the IFTA Clearinghouse is subject to the fees provided for under R2130.”
INDIANA	Oppose	There have only been a handful of late jurisdictions in the last few years and no repeat offenders.
IOWA	Oppose	Iowa appreciates the spirited discussion of this ballot at the IFTA Educational Forum in Denver. We also would point to Illinois' comments that the ballot language needs clarification and is confusing at points. Broadly, Iowa opposes this ballot because we do not think a punitive measure is merited in this situation. A jurisdiction never intends to have a late transmittal of fees and this is almost always due to system or other issues beyond the control of a jurisdiction. Iowa would also note that the real problem appears to be that the other jurisdictions need to receive fees in a timely manner when a transmittal is late. This is completely understandable, but if that is the goal then IFTA should reconsider the provision that the late transmittal fees must be delivered by paper check. The paper check process is the slowest process in most jurisdictions to issue a payment. IFTA should instead find a method or require jurisdictions to use a method that would transmit late fees as quickly as possible, since that is really the issue that needs to be fixed.
KANSAS	Oppose	This issue seems to be, sometimes, related to the implementaiton of a new system which to us, does not warrant a late fee. There also seems to be no repeat offenders. We are not in favor of this proposal at this time.
MAINE	Oppose
MANITOBA	Oppose
MICHIGAN	Support
NEBRASKA	Oppose	We agree with most of what others have already stated in their comments namely: seem unecessary as there have been few late transmittals and no repeat offenders how does one define "lifetime"? disconnect between the history section which implies this is needed as jurisdicitons won't receive their full funds and the ballot language which provides that the penalty/fines will be used to fund IFTA, Inc. activities.
NEW BRUNSWICK	Support
NEW HAMPSHIRE	Oppose	New Hampshire opposes this ballot for many of the same reasons stated by Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Quebec, and Washington. We are unsure why this amendment is needed as no data was provided to illustrate the need. We are also unsure why the ballot would specify what the fees collected “can” be used for vs. what the fees “shall” be used for. New Hampshire also feels that there should be language provide for a process to request the fee be waived due to extenuating circumstances, as those are most likely the reason for late submissions.
NEW JERSEY	Oppose	We see no data that suggests this is necessary.
NORTH CAROLINA	Oppose	Although North Carolina does not object to the underlying purpose of the ballot, North Carolina cannot support the ballot without significant revisions. There are sentences without a period, sentence fragments, and sentences that are incoherent. Based on the condition of this ballot, North Carolina recommends that the sponsor allow the Attorney Advisory Committee to review the ballot and help the sponsor make changes. In the alternative, the sponsor can also reach out to North Carolina directly and it will assist the sponsor in making revisions to this ballot. In addition to the general condition of this ballot, North Carolina has the following concerns with the ballot: It unnecessarily repeats the same language in two sections; It should provide a means to challenge the assessment of the fee; It must avoid the use of acronyms (e.g., POP); It should not use the Educational Forum as a recipient for fees as this is a new event and it not well established; It should clarify who decides on the allocation of fees; It should provide clarity for the consequences if the jurisdiction fails to pay the penalty; It is unclear on whose fiscal year the penalty applies; and It needs to allow exceptions more often that once or it should provide exceptions for cause.
NOVA SCOTIA	Oppose
OKLAHOMA	Oppose	If there were serial offenders, we could see the need for enforcement mechanism here. But according to the IFTA Board 4th quarter 2023 meeting minutes, there were only 2 late data transmittals in each of the last 2 years. And none of those were repeat offenders. Other points to consider are the penalty proposed does nothing to make the jurisdictions whole nor does it confront the compliance issue.
ONTARIO	Support	This policy will penalize late transmittals due to unintentional technical or user errors. We would like to see a distinction made between failing to submit transmittal data on time due to negligence and failing to submit data due to unforeseen circumstances and/or errors with the penalty not applying to unintentional errors. Having said that, since annual dues invoices are sent out before the fiscal year ends, it may be easier to track these fees by calendar year if this ballot passes.
PENNSYLVANIA	Support
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND	Undecided	This “one exception will be granted” suggests a jurisdiction can wait for their third offense and have the $5000 fee excepted. If that is not the intent, it may be better to draft the table as: 1st offense warning, 2nd offense $1000, 3rd offense $2500, 4th & subsequent $5000 We are unsure the intent of: “The late fee is for the late submission of Transmittal Data only. Funding late currently has a ‘penalty’, and that is a jurisdiction would have to send out checks.” If we are late funding, we have to send checks, understood. If we are only late submitting Transmittal Data, we have to pay the new fee, understood. If we are late both submitting Transmittal Data AND funding, as written, we have to send checks and there is NO fee. If the intent is to apply the late fee and have the jurisdiction send checks as a “penalty” for being late on both then the “fee is for the late submission of Transmittal Data only” should be worded as “the late fee is only for the late submission of Transmittal Data”
QUEBEC	Oppose	Considering the systemic issues some membership faced in recent years, we believe that it would have been appropriate to provide for the possibility of waiving these fees when a jurisdiction is faced with exceptional circumstances (not one exception !). We also would like to define the term POP that was not define anywhere. We question the appropriateness of such an amendment if delays are so rare.
RHODE ISLAND	Undecided	Have some of the same questions have already been mentioned. However will repeat them for adding specific thoughts: What is the definition of "lifetime"? Maybe it should be limited to once every 5 years or some other timeframe. In a digital age of loss connections and other explainable reasons, this one time exceptions seems excessive. Also with respect to the digital age, why is the IFTA transmittal calendar have what seems to be random due dates each month? A standard due date like we expect tax filings from taxpayers would maybe aleve some of the late filing issues. For tax return fiings, it would be 25th of the month (as an example) with a shift in due date to the next business day only for holidays and weekends.
SASKATCHEWAN	Undecided	Saskatchewan would like a better understanding of the fair application of the penalty. This would include the criteria to be used to approve a waiver request and an increase in the number of waivers that could be provided from one a lifetime. The criteria for waivers could be based on business disruptions outside the control of the organization over a period of several days, such as a loss of IT services, disruption of utilities in building or data centre for an extended period of time, health and safety incidents resulting in serious injury, flood or fire impact that renders a building uninhabitable, a pandemic event requiring business operations to shut down or a violent act at the administrative level.
WASHINGTON	Oppose	Further data is needed to determine what this ballot is attempting to resolve that dispute resolution cannot. In addition, clarification is needed within the proposed language to clarify whether the offense escalations are continuous over the jurisdiction's lifetime or restart every fiscal year.
WYOMING	Oppose
Support: 4 Oppose: 16 Undecided: 5

IFTA Ballot Comments

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2024

Address:

(480) 748-5763