Print Page
Search

as of August 21, 2017:

$1 USD = $1.2587 CAD
$1 CAD = $0.7945 USD

Comments on Proposed Ballot: 2017.01 Uncollectable Accounts

The following comments were submitted for the proposed ballot - 2017.01 Uncollectable Accounts.

 Date  Name

 Organization/

Jurisdiction

 Comment
 9/5/17 Dave Burns Manitoba While there is a need to address uncollectable accounts, the ballot as it is written is not addressing some issues that will arise once implemented. How are jurisdictions to going to demonstrate they have exhausted all collection efforts? How are jurisdiction going to handle situations where the fees are partially recovered or partially paid over time? Further discussion to address these issues should be held before passing this ballot.
5/18/17 Craig Johnson Pennsylvania  Oppose until the data is made available to jurisdictions on the scope of apportioned NSFs per jurisdiction.
 5/12/17 Melanie Fitzgerald  New Brunswick Department of Public Safety

I initially think this is a great idea, but I do have some concerns. I'm wondering what other jurisdictions thoughts are on the following questions:

1)If the money is collected back from other jurisdictions by deducting it from the current months transmittals, what happens if the current month isn't enough to cover the full month, will the balance need to come from following transmittals? How will this be tracked?

2)Are there plans to modify the clearinghouse to support this?

3)Are other jurisdictions planning on cancelling the supplement/registration after the 90 days. If the supplement/registration is cancelled and the host jurisdiction will no longer be collecting the money from the carrier, the carrier essentially has gotten free registration up to that point.

4)If the supplement/registration is suspended, what happens if the carrier pays after the money has been collected back from the other jurisdictions. How is it then redistributed? Is it done as a new backdated supplement?

5)Do other jurisdictions have thoughts on what this will look like on the recap and transmittal reports?

Thanks everyone. I wish I could be at the annual meeting to discuss this with everyone in person, but I can't.

 5/9/17 Thomas Henderson Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services

Minnesota believes that no one jurisdiction alone should bear the full brunt of an uncollectable account and is generally in agreement with the ballot proposal but would prefer the removal of the permissible language it contains.

In Article V, section 505 the proposed language is: If the reason for cancellation, suspension or revocation of any apportioned registration is due to the account being determined to be uncollectable, the base jurisdiction may adjust the fees previously transmitted in accordance with section1215. Minnesota would prefer the permissive word “may” be replaced with “shall” in order to maintain a higher degree of consistency among the jurisdictions.

5/5/17 Dawn Lietz Nevada Support
 5/4/17 Stacey Hammond Utah Support. Utah is in agreement with the purpose of this ballot and believes this to be the right thing to do. There are some items that we are concerned about.

The ballot states that we “exhaust all collection efforts” prior to adjusting fees. We would anticipate that jurisdictions would apply all diligence in collection of unpaid fees. For a smaller state being diligent and collecting everything, but the truly proven uncollectible amounts, we may be adversely impacted if other states are not as diligent. It is an honest concern.

Another issue will be in the programming of systems to account for reversals across the period of 90 days to three years. Logistics of handling reversed fees, and perhaps re-transmittal of fees should they be collected after adjustment, by the various jurisdiction systems and IRP need to be considered – especially with a one year implementation.
4/25/17 Jeff Hood Indiana Department of Revenue Indiana supports this ballot.
 4/13/17 Cathy Beedle Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles Thank you to the several jurisdictions that have provided comments on the uncollectable ballot. I appreciate the comment regarding the language that requires a jurisdiction to "exhaust all collection efforts afforded by law" prior to deeming the account uncollectable. That language was included to try to emphasize the importance of due diligence in collection efforts before reversing out previously transmitted monies. I would be happy to re-consider that sentence to something not quite so demanding. I don't believe that the language in the ballot would prohibit taking this action if the NSF payment was related to an audit payment, but could certainly add language to clarify that.

Regarding section 1050, I'm not sure exactly how this language would impact the administration of this ballot if passed. 1050 seems to be talking about an audit assessment that is never paid or partially paid as opposed to payments that were received (whether for audit or reg fees) transmitted and then the payment ended up as an NSF payment, or in other words as if payment had never been received in the first place.
 4/10/17 Paul Johnson Washington Department of Licensing We support this ballot
 4/3/17 Rena Hussey Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia supports the ballot concept, but offers the following for the sponsor's consideration.
• The reversal provisions should cover all uncollectable monies previously remitted whether from registration transactions or audits.
• Jurisdictions should be allowed to do a reversal when they are unable to collect delinquent monies for 60 or 90 days (90 days would sync with IFTA), but no longer than 3 years, or based on provisions of the base jurisdiction’s laws that establish the debt as uncollectable. Only allowing a jurisdiction to reverse a payment after all collection efforts afforded by law are exhausted (as required by the proposed ballot), may require a jurisdiction to carry the loss for several years before recovery or potentially indefinitely if their collection efforts cannot be fully completed within 3 years. We believe that specifying specific reasons a jurisdiction would be allowed to reverse a transmittal of funds would be unnecessarily limiting as we are certain to overlook something (ex. fraudulent bills).
• It may be helpful to include a provision that would allow other jurisdictions to require collection related documentation from the base jurisdiction.
• It may be helpful to include a provision indicating that once monies are deemed uncollectable and reversed that collection is then the responsibility of the individual jurisdictions.
• IFTA provisions P1060 Allocation of Tax and R1380 Communication of Audit Findings may be helpful to review. For those jurisdictions that handle IRP and IFTA in the same agency or department, maintaining similar provisions would be beneficial.
 3/31/17  James Starling Alabama Support the concept of transmittal adjustments for uncollectable fees and refunds/credits. Please see Plan section 1505(d) for existing uncollectable language for audits, and section 1210 regarding timely collection of apportioned fees.
Sign In
Sign In securely
Notifications
Calendar