https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inflation-trudeau-poilevre-pandemic-supply-chains-1.6261611
The Conservatives' inflation argument is flawed — but it still might work
The surge in prices is being driven by factors outside of Ottawa's control. But politics is politics.
To start, the Conservatives accused the Liberal government of having no plan to deal with higher prices. Then they suggested Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn't know how much it costs to buy a package of bacon or a two-by-four.
Given the hassle of going to a grocery store with a full security team and motorcade (and the fact that prime ministers generally aren't responsible for home repairs at official residences), it's easy for a prime minister to get tripped up on such questions. Which means the Prime Minister's Office might have to start preparing a daily brief on how much a carton of milk costs on Rideau Street.
Eventually, the Conservatives sent up their finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, to bring their arguments full circle — to claim that, in fact, Justin Trudeau is the approximate reason inflation is happening.
"The cost of government is driving up the cost of living," Poilievre said. "Almost a half a trillion dollars of inflationist Liberal deficits mean more dollars chasing fewer goods, driving higher prices."
Poilievre punctuated his point with a play on words, describing the current situation as "Justin… flation."
Trudeau seemed unimpressed by the clever wordplay. "While the Conservatives play silly partisan games," he said, "we are focused on Canadians. We know that what Canadians are facing is a serious situation."
So here is the first real question of the new Parliament: to what degree is the Liberal government to blame for the inflation Canadians are experiencing?
Global causes, local effects
Frances Donald, the global chief economist for Manulife Investment Management, was asked recently about inflation during an appearance on former Liberal strategist David Herle's podcast. She pointed to a number of factors that have nothing to do with the Trudeau government's fiscal policy: global supply chain disruptions, COVID-19 policies in China, global droughts, pent-up consumer demand.
Informed explanations from the United States also point to an array of international factors, many of which are linked to the pandemic. The New York Times'Paul Krugman has written that this bout of inflation seems more like what happened after the Second World War than the chronic inflation of the 1970s.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rises during question period in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2021. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
"I am impressed to see the high esteem in which the member for Carleton seems to hold me, that I was able to create a global inflation crisis with our initiatives to support Canadians throughout this pandemic," Trudeau said in reply to Poilievre.
In an interview with CBC's Power & Politics on Tuesday, former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page also pointed to a number of factors driving inflation — but did suggest that government support was boosting consumer demand. He also said that inflation could be short-lived but that it should factor into the government's decisions about future stimulus spending.
What is driving the rising cost of living in Canada?
While Poilievre likes to point to the amount of money the federal government dispersed during the pandemic — the big number at the bottom of the balance sheet — Conservatives might not want to get into a debate about exactly what the money was used for.
The Canadian Emergency Response Benefit accounted for $81.6 billion. The Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy has so far provided $97.5 billion. The federal government says an additional $19.9 billion has been sent to the provinces and territories.
Maybe the Conservatives could find examples of excess to point to. But in what ways would they have spent significantly less?
Inflation wasn't an issue during the election campaign
While Liberals might be broadly vulnerable to the charge that they are too loose with federal funds, Conservatives also have to contend with the fiscal plan their party ran on in the election campaign that ended two months ago.
According to that plan, Conservatives would have run a slightly larger deficit in the current fiscal year before following a track broadly similar to the Liberal plan. And Page's Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy found that the Conservative plan lacked credibility.
The Liberal response is that their plan includes substantial federal spending to lower child care fees and create more child care spaces — something that would help to lower the cost of living for many families. The Liberals also don't mind pointing out that the Conservatives campaigned on cancelling that spending.
But the Liberals presumably also know that if day-to-day items continue to get more expensive, day-to-day politics will get harder for the government — because it might be blamed for rising prices and because that could make it harder to pursue policies in areas like climate change.
Inflation is a Liberal point of vulnerability
The cost of living is something immediately tangible to everyone. And if Canadians are already grumpy about the price of bacon, they might be less willing to accept any new policy that carries a cost.
So while the Liberals can point to spending on child care and affordable housing, they're not immune to questions about what they could be doing to help Canadians deal with the impacts of inflation.
The Conservatives are no doubt happy to keep talking about it. They have a stronger hand to play on inflation than they would if they were fighting the government on climate policy or Indigenous reconciliation or vaccine mandates.
But however inflated the rhetoric in question period, the biggest question is how long this period of inflation might last.
If it persists, the Liberals might have real problems — even if they're only about responding to external forces beyond their control.
If inflation fades in 2022, the Conservatives will have to find something else with which to attack the government.
But that's the blessing of question period: every day offers another opportunity to yell about something new.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Page
Kevin Page (born 1957) is a Canadianeconomist. He was the first ever Parliamentary Budget Officer for Canada. He was appointed to the position on March 25, 2008,[1] and his term was completed on March 22, 2013. He now teaches at the University of Ottawa.[2] In 2013, Page was named as the Jean-Luc Pepin Research Chair on Canadian Government. In 2016, Page became the head of the newly created Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD), a think tank with a focus on public finance and policy at the University of Ottawa.
Early life
Page was born in Thunder Bay, Ontario, to James and Stella Page. A graduate of Fort William Collegiate Institute, he later studied at Lakehead University, went to Simon Fraser University on a golf scholarship and took his M.A. in economics from Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.[3][4]
Career
Before being appointed to the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, on March 25, 2008, Kevin Page had for twenty-seven years worked as a civil servant in the Canadian government with experience in central agencies and line departments including: Finance Canada; the Treasury Board Secretariat; the Privy Council Office; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; and Human Resources and Social Development Canada.[4][5]
Parliamentary Budget Officer
During the 2006 federal election campaign, the Conservative party promoted the creation of an independent Parliamentary Budget Office.[6] The position of a PBO was created through the Federal Accountability Act of 2006 when the Conservatives won the election.[6]
According to a Winnipeg Free Press, "at the time of his appointment, Page was an economist working within the Privy Council Office. He was the senior-most economist advising Prime Minister Stephen Harper." Page did not want the job as PBO but was encouraged by Harper's staff to interview for it.[7] According to the Winnipeg Free Press' Dan Lett, in his three decades with the federal government, Page had "forged a reputation as a frank, non-nonsense advisor and analyst".[7]
Page was the first Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of the Library of Parliament who reports to the Speakers of the House of Commons and Senate.[8] The Parliamentary Budget Officer's responsibilities include providing an independent analysis of the state of the economy, the nation's finances and the government's expenditure plan, and an analysis of the expenditure estimates of any government department or agency when requested to do so by a Parliamentary committee that's reviewing those estimates. The officer is also mandated to provide an estimate of costs for any proposal that falls within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.[1]
In his first two years, the PBO under Page "prepared five economic and fiscal updates and more than 20 research reports", and "provided assessments of cost estimates of policy initiatives proposed in legislation".[6] Page "appeared before both House and Senate committees on eight occasions in three years, more than most deputy ministers, let alone ministers". During that time the PBO had a budget of only $2.8-million and a staff of 11.[6] By September 2010 his staff dropped to nine.[6]
According to an article by the TBNewsWatch, during his tenure as PBO, Page "sparred with then prime minister Stephen Harper questioning "government estimates and issuing reports that [were] at odds with official [Conservative] government forecasts".[9]
Page released his fall 2008 fiscal analysis that said Canada was "headed toward a budget deficit" rejecting then-Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty's post-election prediction that Canada "would avoid both a recession and a deficit".[7]Page's October 9, 2008 report contradicted the official federal government's estimate of the cost of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan. The Parliamentary Budget Office report found that the cost would be from $14-billion to $18-billion by 2011 when Canadian troops would withdraw. This represents "billions more than Ottawa has estimated, and perhaps almost twice as high."[10]
In February 2009, Page challenged the federal government's optimistic budget projections with its stimulus package that he said was too small and therefore ineffective, given the severity of the Great Recession.[11]
In 2009 Canadian Business article Page was cited as saying, "There are former parliamentarians saying I should be held in contempt of Parliament and should be fired, but I’m okay with them saying that. That’s just part of the debate."[12] He has been unapologetic about his desire to give the Parliamentary Budget Office a significant role in informing Parliament and Canadians about government finances, saying "I went to the OECD, and they said the Americans have the best budget office, bar none. Why can't we be the best in five years? If that's overstepping my mandate, then I'm earning my money."[12][Notes 1]
Page published a scathing report on June 22, 2010, examining the fiscal impact of the Harper governments' Truth in Sentencing Act, a flagship of the administration's tough-on-crime agenda. The report said that the implementation of the act would cost over a billion dollars annually.[13][14]
According to Page's March 10, 2011 report, it would cost "$30 billion to buy and maintain" 65 -35 Joint Strike Fighter planes.[15][16] The federal government estimated the cost would be $9-billion.[15]
In September 2011, Page reported that federal expenditures were generally consistent with Budget 2011 plan.[17]
In February 2012, Jim Flaherty, then-Minister of Finance in the Harper government, described Page as "unbelievable, unreliable, incredible" during a "scrum with reporters". Flaherty was responding to questions about Page's PBO report that contrary to the Harper government's claim, Canada's Old Age Security (OAS) "system was sustainable" and affordable, and there was no need to "increase the age of entitlement from 65 to 67" for OAS and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS).[18]
By December 2012 Page had taken the federal government to court to access more "information on $5.2 billion in budget cuts."[19] In June 2011 Page "sought a legal opinion on [the] power of direct request".[20] By September 2011, eleven months into the fiscal year of Budget 2012, the cabinet ministers still had submitted no spending plans representing a "$250-billion enterprise" with "80-plus departments and agencies".[20] Even the "Clerk [of the Privy Council]" said that the PBO had exceeded its mandate.[20] Page felt that the Office had a choice but to take the government to court.[20]
By September 2010, Page had announced he would not seek a second term as parliamentary budget officer.[6] Since it was established in 2008, the PBO was in a "constant battle with the federal government over his independence, inadequate budget and lack of staff".[6]
Just months before he left office, Page in an interview with iPolitics, observed changes in the way the federal government worked. In the late 1980s, with Conservative Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister, during debates on free trade or GST, "the Finance Department would release major papers on free trade impacts, calculations, there’d be a major debate. GST, the same thing: the big transition from a manufacturing sales tax. Analytical papers, lots of transparency, debate." He noted that that no longer exists.[20]
University of Ottawa
Since 2012, Page has been a professor at the University of Ottawa.[2]
Jean-Luc Pepin Research Chair
In 2013, Page was named as the Jean-Luc Pepin Research Chair, a Chair on Canadian Government honouring Jean-Luc Pépin at the University of Ottawa.[21][22]
Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
In 2016, Page became the head of the newly created Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD), a think tank with a focus on public finance and policy at the University of Ottawa.[23] It was funded by the Government of Ontario.[23] JLP works with a network of international and domestic organizations, such as the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the National Governors Association.[23]
According to a 2013 Maclean's article, Page had the support of the University of Ottawa's then-President Allan Rock, to establish an institute that would "study the math of public policy", similar to the work of the Parliamentary Budget Office.[2]
In 2013, economist Philip Cross,[Notes 2] published a "scathing opinion piece" in the Financial Post, criticizing Page's alleged "partisan and adversarial style."[2][24] In a follow-up July 29, 2013 article co-published by the MLI and the Financial Post, the week after the University of Ottawa announced the creation of a "new institute to house Page as a fiscal watchdog" staffed "with current PBO members", Cross called for shutting down the PBO. Cross wrote that the launch of this institute "allows Allan Rock, ...one-time candidate for the Liberal leadership, to realize a life-long dream of heading an opposition party."[2][25][26]
Publications
In August 2015, Page published Unaccountable: Truth and Lies on Parliament Hill, about the federal public service under the Harper administration,[27] which Page described as "virtually impotent". Page called for an "overhaul" with a "new generation of public servants."[28] According to a 2015 review in the Ottawa Citizen, Page said that "the public service [had] been politicized at senior levels and [was] no longer transparent with Canadians — it [had] stopped showing the work it does on behalf of taxpayers."[28]
https://www.ifsd.ca/en/apropos-about
The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) is a Canadian think-tank at the nexus of public finance and state institutions.
Fiscal ecosystems include governments, legislatures, the public administration and other key actors and institutions in our political and economic life. This ecosystem, rooted in hundreds of years of political history and economic development, is composed of an intertwined set of incentives, public and private information and a complex and sometimes opaque set of rules and processes based on constitutional law, legislative law, conventions and struggles for power. The actors within this system depend on one another as well as the robustness and transparency of information and processes, all underpinned by a society’s standards of accountability. It is at this dynamic intersection of money and politics that the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at uOttawa aims to research, advise, engage and teach.
IFSD undertakes its work in all orders of government as well as internationally.
IFSD manages a number of specific initiatives to further its mandate:
iVote-jeVote.ca is a student led campaign, led by uOttawa students to foster political engagement among young Canadians.
e-PBO.org is an online collaboration portal, that supports the Global Network of Parliamentary Budget Officers (GN-PBO) through eLearning, administrative resources, mentorship, peer knowledge exchange and the development of practice standards for public finance officials.
Stay up-to-date with IFSD’s activities by joining our mailing list.
Our Team
Kevin Page
President and CEO
kevin.page@ifsd.ca| 613-797-2444
Kevin Page is the founding President and CEO of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. Mr. Page was born in Fort William (Thunder Bay), Ontario. His undergraduate education took place at Lakehead University (Ontario) & Simon Fraser University (British- Columbia) and he has an M.A. in Economics from Queen's University, an Honorary Doctor of Laws from Lakehead University, and an Honorary Doctorate from the University of York (United Kingdom).
Sahir Khan
Executive Vice-President
sahir.khan@ifsd.ca| 613-724-7503 | @sahir_yow
Sahir has been a public finance executive, teacher, advisor and speaker for the last 12 years. The focus of his work has been on budgetary and financial analysis, reporting and organizational performance. Sahir holds a B.Comm. (Hon.) from Queen’s University and an MBA (finance) from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business.
Helaina Gaspard
Director, Governance and Institutions
helaina.gaspard@ifsd.ca| 613-983-8461 | @HelainaGaspard
Helaina is a researcher, advisor, teacher and convener. Her work focuses on the state institutions that incentivize and govern the behaviour of actors, influencing the performance of organizations and public policy outcomes. Helaina holds an Hon. B.A. from Western, an M.A. from Queen’s University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Ottawa.
Azfar Ali Khan
Director, Performance
azfar.alikhan@ifsd.ca| 613-265-9240 | @azfaralikhan
Azfar is an experienced financial professional passionate about optimizing performance around the core mandate and value proposition of public sector organizations. Azfar holds a B.Comm (Honours) from the University of Toronto and has a Certified Public Accounting designation from the State of Illinois.
Mostafa Askari
Chief Economist
mostafa.askari@ifsd.ca| 343-961-1743
Mostafa Askari is IFSD's Chief Economist. Dr. Askari held key fiscal, analytical, and managerial positions in the federal government, including at Finance Canada and Health Canada, and as a senior advisor to Canada’s Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund. Mostafa has a PhD. in economics from Queen's University.
Aimeric Atsin
Sr. Analyst
Aimeric.atsin@ifsd.ca | 613-796-8980
Aimeric Atsin is a Sr. analyst at the IFSD. He works principally on modeling and economic forecasting, Fiscal and economic analysis. Aimeric has an M.A in economics, with specialization in applied econometrics and in advanced Macroeconomics from Sherbrooke university. In addition, Aimeric has a second M.A in applied economics, with a specialization in Computable General Equilibrium model (MECG) from Laval University.
Kimberly Paquet
Administrative Coordinator
kim.paquet@ifsd.ca| 613-853-6455
Kimberly Paquet is the administrative coordinator at IFSD. Kimberly manages administrative duties and client relations for her colleagues at IFSD. She is the main point of contact for any client inquiries, training workshops and meetings. Kimberly holds a B.A in Social Sciences from the University of Ottawa.
Clara Geddes
Economic Analyst
Clara.Geddes@ifsd.ca| 613-698-0848
Clara Geddes conducts quantitative and qualitative analysis to support IFSD research in policy areas such as infrastructure and child welfare. She has an Honours Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toronto in Economics and International Relations and is a current registered full time student on the MSc Economics for the academic year 2020/21 at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Our Fellows
Scott Pattison
Scott.Pattison@ifsd.ca
Scott D. Pattison is the Deputy Executive Director of the Multistate Tax Commission, an intergovernmental state tax agency whose mission is to promote uniform and consistent tax policy and administration among the states, assist taxpayers in achieving compliance with existing tax laws, and advocate for state and local sovereignty in the development of tax policy.
Prior to that, Mr. Pattison served as executive director and CEO of the National Governors Association (NGA), the bipartisan organization of the nation’s governors. The group speaks with a collective voice on a wide range of issues and works to influence the federal government on innovative ideas that can be implemented nationwide. Mr. Pattison worked with governors to identify and prioritize issues facing states, identify challenges and solutions to those challenges and oversee the day-to-day operations of the association.
Mr. Pattison graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and received his law degree from the University of Virginia.
Mitch O'Brien
Mitch.Obrien@ifsd.ca
Mitchell O’Brien is an international governance subject matter expert with 20 years applied experience researching, designing, and delivering support programming aimed at building effective, open, and inclusive public institutions with a focus on strengthening their use of public finances. He has worked on legal, institutional, and process reforms aimed at strengthening policy development and public financial management with government, parliamentary, and civil society counterparts.
Mitchell has worked in over 100 countries across North America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Asia/Pacific region. Prior to becoming a Fellow with the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, he worked as a Senior Governance Specialist with the World Bank Group, which he joined in 2004. He holds a Masters in International Development Policy from Duke University, Bachelor of Law with Honors and a Bachelor of Arts from Griffith University, Australia.
Rohit Samaroo
Rohit Samaroo is the Director of the Economic Portfolio and Analytics in the Expenditure Management Sector of the Treasury Board Secretariat. He has extensive experience in performance data, data systems and analysis with the goal of having better insights in the performance of programs. Rohit strongly believes that greater use of objective evidence on performance in decision-making within the public sector is a desirable and achievable goal.
Rohit has worked in the private, non-profit and public sectors. He holds a Bachelor degree in Mechanical Engineering (minor in management), and Bachelor and Master degrees in Political Science. Rohit enjoys helping public servants and potential public servants overcome challenges in their career aspirations in government.
https://www.mtc.gov/The-Commission/
The Commission
The Multistate Tax Commission is an intergovernmental state tax agency working on behalf of states and taxpayers to facilitate the equitable and efficient administration of state tax laws that apply to multistate and multinational enterprises. Created by the Multistate Tax Compact, the Commission is charged by this law with:
- Facilitating the proper determination of State and local tax liability of multistate taxpayers, including the equitable apportionment of tax bases and settlement of apportionment disputes;
- Promoting uniformity or compatibility in significant components of tax systems;
- Facilitating taxpayer convenience and compliance in the filing of tax returns and in other phases of tax administration;
- Avoiding duplicative taxation.
The commission was created in 1967 as an effort by states to protect their tax authority in the face of previous proposals to transfer the writing of key features of state tax laws from the state legislature. For that reason, the Commission has been a voice for preserving the authority of states to determine their own tax policy within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
The Commission's headquarters office is located at 444 N. Capitol Street NW, Suite 425, Washington, DC 20001. The Commission's Executive Director is Gregory S. Matson.
MISSION STATEMENT
The Multistate Tax Commission is an intergovernmental state tax agency whose mission is to achieve fairness by promoting compliance and consistent tax policy and practice, and to preserve the sovereignty of state and local governments over their tax systems.
VALUES
Value Collaboration
- Share our expertise with members and stakeholders
- Develop and leverage shared resources among states to maximize return
- Engage federal, state, and local governments and taxpayers
Value Excellence
- Provide the highest quality legal, policy, and compliance services
- Provide superior support and training
Value Inclusivity
- Invite the participation of all stakeholders
- Act openly and transparently
Value Integrity
- Conduct all activities according to the highest ethical standards
Value Sovereignty
- Promote the authority of state and local governments to determine their own tax policies and administer their own tax systems
- Assist Congress to maintain a balance between states’ sovereign powers and the role of the federal government in regulating interstate commerce
Value Uniformity
- Pursue uniformity of tax policy and practices by tax jurisdictions
- Stand up for the equitable treatment of taxpayers
- Support taxpayer accountability
VISION
By 2019, MTC will be recognized as:
- The “gold standard” for tax policy development
- The primary authority for the public and public officials on issues of state and local tax uniformity and fairness
- The leading resource for ensuring equitable tax compliance
Member States
Definition of Member States
Compact members are states (represented by the heads of the tax agencies administering corporate income and sales and use taxes) that have enacted the Multistate Tax Compact into their state law.* These states govern the Commission and participate in a wide range of projects and programs.
Sovereignty members are states that support the purposes of the Multistate Tax Compact through regular participation in, and financial support for, the general activities of the Commission. These states join in shaping and supporting the Commission’s efforts to preserve state taxing authority and improve state tax policy and administration.
Associate members are states that participate in Commission meetings and otherwise consult and cooperate with the Commission and its other member states or, as project members, participate in Commission programs or projects.
*Alabama, Ala. Code § 40-27-1; Alaska, Alaska Stat. Ann. § 43.19.010; Arkansas, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84 4101; Colorado, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-60-1301; District of Columbia, D.C. Code § 47-441; Hawaii, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 255-1; Idaho, Idaho Code § 63-3701; Kansas, Kan Stat. Ann. § 79-4301; Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 32.200; Montana, Mont. Code § 15-1-601; New Mexico, NM Stat § 7-5-1; North Dakota, N.D. Cent. Code § 57-59-01; Oregon, Ore. Rev. Stat. § 305.655; Texas, Tex. Tax Code § 141.001; Utah, Utah Code Ann. § 59-22-1; Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 82.56.010.
National Nexus Program
Adapted and updated from the Nexus Program Plan as Adopted by the National Nexus Advisory Committee and Multistate Tax Commission Executive Committee May 10, 1990.
Revised August 5, 2021
National Nexus Charter
Revised July 25, 2013
National Nexus Charter
Introduction
The National Nexus Program is a program of the Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) created by and composed of member states. The Nexus Committee was formed under Article VI.2 of the Multistate Tax Compact and bylaw 6(b) to oversee the National Nexus Program.
Responsibilities
The National Nexus Program was created to encourage and facilitate compliance with nexus laws by those engaged in interstate commerce; cooperation among states regarding development and enforcement of nexus law; education of taxpayers and state staff about nexus; and fair and consistent enforcement of nexus law.
The MTC has charged the Nexus Committee with the responsibility to administer the National Nexus Program. The committee oversees the MTC National Nexus Program; considers potential nexus audits to be recommended to the Audit Committee; and provides direction to the MTC National Nexus Program on state policy regarding nexus. The committee will establish priorities and goals for approval or further direction from the Executive Committee.
Membership and Voting
Each state that participates in the MTC National Nexus Program is represented on the MTC Nexus Committee. A state may have multiple employees who participate in meetings; however, in any matter requiring a vote, each state will be entitled to only one vote. Committee members who participate in training or informational sessions or in any session in which confidential taxpayer information may be discussed must be authorized by their state to disclose and receive such information.
A quorum is established by the number of National Nexus Program member states that are present at any meeting. Official committee decisions are made by motion, with no need for a second. Motions may be offered by any member, with or without an invitation of the Chair. Member states may vote yes, no, or abstain. A motion passes when a majority of member states present vote in favor of the motion. For example, assume 15 member states are present and eligible to vote. A vote of 8 yes, 3 abstain, and 4 no means the motion passes. A vote of 7 yes, 4 abstain, and 4 no means the motion does not pass. No voting by proxy is allowed.
The chair has the option to limit which member states may vote on a motion when it affects some member states and not others.
Except where inconsistent with the provisions of the Compact or the MTC bylaws and Public Participation Policy, Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure is the parliamentary authority for all meetings of the committee.
Committee Activities
The committee meets at the call of the chair, generally at least three times per year, and meetings are conducted in a manner consistent with the MTC’s bylaws and Public Participation Policy. The committee’s primary responsibilities are:
- Administering a multi-state voluntary disclosure program in which non-filers may, through a confidential and substantially uniform process, and single point of contact, limit back-tax and penalty liability
- Sponsoring educational programs and presentations regarding nexus law and the availability of multi-state voluntary disclosure
- Providing a public forum for comment on nexus law and the National Nexus Program
Governance
The Nexus Committee may elect, or the MTC’s Executive Committee may appoint, employees from National Nexus Program member states to serve as chair and vice chair(s). The chair and vice chair(s) will assist MTC staff in planning and carrying out the activities and functions of the Nexus Committee and may also appoint members to assist or serve in such other functions as necessary to carry out its responsibilities or activities.
Amendments
The committee will review this charter every year during the annual meetings of the MTC and may adopt policies consistent with this charter to guide the performance of its duties and responsibilities. The committee may, with the approval of the Executive Committee, amend this charter. See Article VI, paragraph 2(b) and (c), of the Compact, and bylaw 6(b).
Approved by the Executive Committee August 5, 2021.
Nexus Information
The National Nexus Program staff of the Multistate Tax Commission is available to provide information on the Multistate Voluntary Disclosure Program, and income/franchise tax or sales/use tax nexus issues.
Contact Us
For information regarding the National Nexus Program, please contact Richard Cram, Director of the National Nexus Program, at (202) 695-8140 or nexus@mtc.gov.
Multistate Tax Commission
National Nexus Program
444 North Capitol Street, Suite 425
Washington, DC 20001
Multistate Tax Commission
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 425
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 650-0300
mtc@mtc.gov
- Executive Director, Gregory S. Matson
- Deputy Executive Director, Scott Pattison
- Director of Administration, William Six
- General Counsel, Nancy Prosser
- Deputy General Counsel, Lila Disque
- Legislative Counsel, Thomas K. E. Shimkin
- Uniformity Counsel, Helen Hecht
Joint Audit Program
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 425
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (312) 913-9150
- Director, Joint Audit Program, Holly Coon
- Field Audit Supervisor, Jeff Silver
- Field Audit Supervisor, Cathy Felix
- Field Audit Supervisor, Larry Shinder
- Field Audit Supervisor, Steve Yang
National Nexus Program
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 425
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 695-8140
nexus@mtc.gov
- Director, National Nexus Program, Richard Cra