The following comments were submitted for the proposed ballot - 2017.01 Uncollectable Accounts.
||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.
||Washington Department of Licensing
||We support this ballot
||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.
|| James Starling
||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.