Rule Comparison

    Compare cash rounding rules across the states you operate in

    Every state below has enacted a cash rounding statute and carries a Centsless record verified against the enacted text. The table sets those records side by side so the differences between them are visible in one view.

    This tool describes published state cash rounding statutes as recorded in the Centsless legislative reference. It does not assess any business's compliance, does not evaluate any point-of-sale product, and is not legal advice. Statuses change; confirm against the primary source before relying on any figure. Where our record is incomplete for a state, that field is omitted rather than estimated.

    Records verified against enacted text: 2026-09-02 to 2026-09-03. Source for each state is linked in its row. Track cash rounding legislation across all fifty states.

    Select the states you operate in

    With nothing selected, all twenty states with a verified record are shown. Selecting states filters the table to those rows, and the columns marked as differing are recomputed across the selection alone.

    Select the states you operate in
    • Alaska
    • Arkansas
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Delaware
    • District of Columbia
    • Illinois
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Mississippi
    • Montana
    • Nevada
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • North Carolina
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio
    • Pennsylvania
    • Rhode Island
    • South Carolina
    • South Dakota
    • Texas
    • Utah
    • West Virginia
    • Wisconsin
    • Wyoming

    States shown without a checkbox have no enacted cash rounding law located in the Centsless record.

    Optional. Neither input changes a recorded value.

    No states selected. All twenty records with a verified profile are shown.

    What the record holds

    Status and date
    When the rounding provision applies, from the enacted act.
    Read from the enacted act
    Obligation
    Whether the act obligates, permits, or delegates.
    Read from the enacted act
    Method
    The rounding method the enacted text prescribes.
    Centsless characterisation of the enacted act
    One or two cent totals
    What the act does with a total of one or two cents. This reports the outcome, including where it follows from the general digit rule, not whether the act carries a dedicated small-total clause.
    Centsless characterisation of the enacted act
    Mixed tender
    Treatment of a transaction settled partly in cash.
    Centsless characterisation of the enacted act
    Cash refunds
    Whether the act states how a refund of a cash purchase is settled. Rounding of change tendered is a separate question and is recorded under mixed tender.
    Centsless characterisation of the enacted act
    Disclosure
    Customer-facing notice required by the act.
    Centsless characterisation of the enacted act
    Liability provision
    Protection, if any, that follows from using the statutory method.
    Centsless characterisation of the enacted act

    Sales tax basis is not shown. Held pending a direct re-read of each of the twenty enacted acts. The prior derivation misgrouped four states, so the column is not shown rather than shown provisionally.

    AlabamaHB 545 / Act 2026-548Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Apr 16, 2026
    HB 545 / Act 2026-548. Enacted Apr 16, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: General retail; excludes government.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Cash portion only
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    ArizonaHB 2938 / Ch. 5Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Mar 13, 2026
    HB 2938 / Ch. 5. Enacted Mar 13, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Obligates
    Scope: General retail; public agencies.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds down to zero
    Mixed tender — differs
    Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    Posted notice required
    Liability provision — differs
    Regulatory cover only
    ConnecticutHB 5349 / PA 26-128Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    Applies from Jan 1, 2027
    HB 5349 / PA 26-128. Enacted Jun 4, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits within a mandatory method
    Scope: In-person retail cash purchases.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Exempt: four cents or less is not rounded
    Mixed tender — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    FloridaSB 1074 / Ch. 2026-68Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since May 11, 2026
    SB 1074 / Ch. 2026-68. Enacted May 11, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: Sales tax dealers; retail cash.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    The eight and nine cent band is expressed as rounding up to the nearest ten cents while producing five-cent behaviour.
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds down to zero
    Mixed tender — differs
    Only where cash change is returned
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Reaches a private cause of action
    GeorgiaHB 1112 / Act 445Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jul 1, 2026
    HB 1112 / Act 445. Enacted May 11, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Obligates
    Scope: General retail; in-person only.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds up to five cents
    Mixed tender — differs
    Only where cash change is returned
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Regulatory cover only
    HawaiiSB 3255 / Act 159Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jul 1, 2026
    SB 3255 / Act 159. Enacted Jun 25, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: General retail.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds up to five cents
    Mixed tender — differs
    Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Reaches a private cause of action
    IdahoSB 1350 / Ch. 241Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jul 1, 2026
    SB 1350 / Ch. 241. Enacted Mar 31, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: General.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Cash refunds — differs
    Cash refunds may be rounded
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    IndianaSB 243 / P.L. 128Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    Applies from Jan 1, 2027
    SB 243 / P.L. 128. Enacted Mar 5, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Obligates
    Scope: Business entities including banks; government units.
    Method — differs
    Operator chooses: always down, always up, or the nickel table
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Operator may round to zero or five
    Mixed tender — differs
    Total-amount rule, no split provision
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    KentuckyHB 757 / Acts Ch. 161Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jul 15, 2026
    HB 757 / Acts Ch. 161. Enacted Apr 14, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Obligates govt; permits retail
    Scope: Government, schools, retail, gaming.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, bands stated in ten-cent language
    The bands are written as rounding to the nearest ten cents, but the behaviour produced is five-cent rounding.
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds down to zero
    Mixed tender — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Regulatory cover only
    MarylandSB 893 / Ch. 516; companion HB 1026 / Ch. 515, both approved May 12, 2026Primary sourceHB 1026 / Ch. 515
    Status and date — differs
    In force since May 12, 2026
    SB 893 / Ch. 516; companion HB 1026 / Ch. 515, both approved May 12, 2026. Enacted May 12, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: Merchants; cash wages.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds up to five cents
    Section 1-604 governs a price totalling less than five cents and 1-604(B) permits rounding it up to five cents, while 1-603 governs prices of five cents or more. A total of $10.02 rounds down under 1-603; a total of $0.02 rounds up under 1-604.
    Mixed tender — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    Both operative sections open with "Notwithstanding any other provision of law". That is a conflict-of-laws clause governing which rule controls, not operator protection, and it is not a shield. Local preemption: Chapters 516 and 515 supersede conflicting local regulations, rules and ordinances. Neither carries operator liability protection.
    MinnesotaHF 4591 / Laws 2026 Ch. 119Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since May 28, 2026
    HF 4591 / Laws 2026 Ch. 119. Enacted May 27, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits; posting required
    Scope: State agency transactions only.
    Method — differs
    Nearest five cents, no rule stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds up to five cents
    Mixed tender — differs
    Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    Written policy required and posted
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    MissouriHB 2819Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Aug 28, 2026
    HB 2819. Enacted Jul 13, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: Retail sales transactions.
    Method — differs
    Nearest five cents, no rule stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Regulatory cover only
    NebraskaLB 838, Sec. 39Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Apr 14, 2026
    LB 838, Sec. 39. Enacted Apr 14, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: Cash sales, transfers, cash wages.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds up to five cents
    Mixed tender — differs
    Non-cash applied first, cash remainder rounds
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Regulatory cover only
    New MexicoHB 291 / Ch. 31Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jul 1, 2026
    HB 291 / Ch. 31. Enacted Mar 4, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Delegation
    Scope: Tax administration; MVD fees.
    Method — differs
    Delegated to agency rule
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    OklahomaHB 3075; 62 O.S. 9002Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    Applies from Nov 1, 2026 agencies; Jul 1, 2027 subdivisions
    HB 3075; 62 O.S. 9002. Enacted May 11, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Obligates agencies
    Scope: Government and public sector only.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    62 O.S. 9002(A) states the full digit table: one or two cents down, three or four up, six or seven down, eight or nine up to ten cents. The eight and nine cent band is written in ten-cent language while producing five-cent behaviour.
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds down to zero
    Mixed tender — differs
    Cash portion only
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    None in the enacted text
    OregonHB 4178 / Or. Laws Ch. 126Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Apr 7, 2026
    HB 4178 / Or. Laws Ch. 126. Enacted Apr 7, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits; signage required
    Scope: Public accommodations; public bodies.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Depends on tender order
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    Posted notice required
    Liability provision — differs
    Reaches a private cause of action
    TennesseeHB 1744 / Pub. Ch. 602Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Mar 18, 2026
    HB 1744 / Pub. Ch. 602. Enacted Mar 18, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits (safe harbor)
    Scope: Private entities; financial institutions.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, stated as ranges not a digit list
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds down to zero
    Mixed tender — differs
    Cash portion only
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Conditional statutory shield
    VermontS.327 / Act 128Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jun 8, 2026
    S.327 / Act 128. Enacted Jun 8, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits; notice required
    Scope: General retail.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Whole post-tax total rounds where any part is cash
    Cash refunds — differs
    Cash refund must be the exact amount paid
    Disclosure — differs
    State model notice required
    Liability provision — differs
    Reaches a private cause of action
    VirginiaHB 954 / Ch. 713Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jul 1, 2026
    HB 954 / Ch. 713. Enacted Apr 13, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: Cash sales, transfers, cash wages.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Mixed tender — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Regulatory cover only
    The protection at Va. Code 6.2-200.2(B) is written to section 6.2-200.2, the tax-calculation provision, not to 6.2-200.1, the rounding authority. Read both sections before relying on it.
    WashingtonSHB 2334 / Ch. 138Primary source
    Status and date — differs
    In force since Jun 11, 2026
    SHB 2334 / Ch. 138. Enacted Mar 23, 2026.
    Obligation — differs
    Permits
    Scope: General retail; in-person only.
    Method — differs
    Symmetric, digit list stated
    One or two cent totals — differs
    Rounds down to zero
    Mixed tender — differs
    Cash portion only
    Cash refunds — differs
    Not addressed by the enacted text
    Disclosure — differs
    No notice required by the act
    Liability provision — differs
    Narrow: price-display mismatch only
    Reaches only a rounded price inconsistent with a displayed or advertised price. Other consumer protection theories are not covered. Local preemption: Declares rounding a matter of statewide concern, preempts local measures restricting it, and bars a local government from treating lawful rounding as a surcharge or an unlawful price differential based on payment method.

    Columns marked "Differs" carry more than one distinct treatment across the states shown. Shading marks the cells in those columns. An empty cell means the enacted record holds no verified value for that field in that state. Columns marked "Characterisation" carry an analyst's reading of the enacted act rather than its own words; the act itself is linked in every row.

    Divergences found

    8 of 8 recorded fields carry more than one treatment across 20 states.

    • Status and date carries 15 distinct values across the states shown. The most common, In force since Jul 1, 2026, covers 5 of them.
    • Obligation carries 10 distinct values across the states shown. The most common, Permits, covers 9 of them.
    • Method is treated 6 different ways across the states shown: Symmetric, digit list stated in Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Washington; Nearest five cents, no rule stated in Minnesota and Missouri; Operator chooses: always down, always up, or the nickel table in Indiana; Symmetric, bands stated in ten-cent language in Kentucky; Delegated to agency rule in New Mexico; Symmetric, stated as ranges not a digit list in Tennessee.
    • One or two cent totals is treated 5 different ways across the states shown: Not addressed by the enacted text in Alabama, Idaho, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Virginia; Rounds down to zero in Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington; Rounds up to five cents in Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota and Nebraska; Exempt: four cents or less is not rounded in Connecticut; Operator may round to zero or five in Indiana.
    • Mixed tender carries 8 distinct values across the states shown. The most common, Not addressed by the enacted text, covers 6 of them.
    • Cash refunds is treated 3 different ways across the states shown: Not addressed by the enacted text in Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington; Cash refunds may be rounded in Idaho; Cash refund must be the exact amount paid in Vermont.
    • Disclosure is treated 4 different ways across the states shown: No notice required by the act in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington; Posted notice required in Arizona and Oregon; Written policy required and posted in Minnesota; State model notice required in Vermont.
    • Liability provision is treated 5 different ways across the states shown: None in the enacted text in Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oklahoma; Regulatory cover only in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska and Virginia; Reaches a private cause of action in Florida, Hawaii, Oregon and Vermont; Conditional statutory shield in Tennessee; Narrow: price-display mismatch only in Washington.

    Questions to put to a system

    Each question below is generated from the recorded values for the states shown. They are questions to ask of a point-of-sale or payments system, not statements about any particular one. Centsless does not assess a business's compliance and does not evaluate any product.

    Questions drawn from a column that carries more than one treatment across the states shown are marked. Those are the fields where one system-wide setting cannot satisfy every state selected.

    1. 1. On what date does the system begin applying the rounding rule recorded for each state shown, and what does it do with a cash transaction taken the day before that date?

      Status and date — differs across the states shown

      Alabama
      In force since Apr 16, 2026
      Arizona
      In force since Mar 13, 2026
      Connecticut
      Applies from Jan 1, 2027
      Florida
      In force since May 11, 2026
      Georgia
      In force since Jul 1, 2026
      Hawaii
      In force since Jul 1, 2026
      Idaho
      In force since Jul 1, 2026
      Indiana
      Applies from Jan 1, 2027
      Kentucky
      In force since Jul 15, 2026
      Maryland
      In force since May 12, 2026
      Minnesota
      In force since May 28, 2026
      Missouri
      In force since Aug 28, 2026
      Nebraska
      In force since Apr 14, 2026
      New Mexico
      In force since Jul 1, 2026
      Oklahoma
      Applies from Nov 1, 2026 agencies; Jul 1, 2027 subdivisions
      Oregon
      In force since Apr 7, 2026
      Tennessee
      In force since Mar 18, 2026
      Vermont
      In force since Jun 8, 2026
      Virginia
      In force since Jul 1, 2026
      Washington
      In force since Jun 11, 2026

    2. 2. Does the system treat rounding in each state shown as the recorded obligation (varies by state, listed below), and can that setting be evidenced per transaction?

      Obligation — differs across the states shown

      Alabama
      Permits
      Arizona
      Obligates
      Connecticut
      Permits within a mandatory method
      Florida
      Permits
      Georgia
      Obligates
      Hawaii
      Permits
      Idaho
      Permits
      Indiana
      Obligates
      Kentucky
      Obligates govt; permits retail
      Maryland
      Permits
      Minnesota
      Permits; posting required
      Missouri
      Permits
      Nebraska
      Permits
      New Mexico
      Delegation
      Oklahoma
      Obligates agencies
      Oregon
      Permits; signage required
      Tennessee
      Permits (safe harbor)
      Vermont
      Permits; notice required
      Virginia
      Permits
      Washington
      Permits

    3. 3. Which rounding method does the system apply in each state shown, and does it reproduce the recorded method (varies by state, listed below) for every terminating digit?

      Method — differs across the states shown

      Alabama
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Arizona
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Connecticut
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Florida
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Georgia
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Hawaii
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Idaho
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Indiana
      Operator chooses: always down, always up, or the nickel table
      Kentucky
      Symmetric, bands stated in ten-cent language
      Maryland
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Minnesota
      Nearest five cents, no rule stated
      Missouri
      Nearest five cents, no rule stated
      Nebraska
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      New Mexico
      Delegated to agency rule
      Oklahoma
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Oregon
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Tennessee
      Symmetric, stated as ranges not a digit list
      Vermont
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Virginia
      Symmetric, digit list stated
      Washington
      Symmetric, digit list stated

    4. 4. What does the system do with a cash total of one or two cents in Alabama, Idaho, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Virginia, where the recorded outcome is: Not addressed by the enacted text?

      One or two cent totals — differs across the states shown

    5. 5. What does the system do with a cash total of one or two cents in Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington, where the recorded outcome is: Rounds down to zero?

      One or two cent totals — differs across the states shown

    6. 6. What does the system do with a cash total of one or two cents in Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota and Nebraska, where the recorded outcome is: Rounds up to five cents?

      One or two cent totals — differs across the states shown

    7. 7. What does the system do with a cash total of one or two cents in Connecticut, where the recorded outcome is: Exempt: four cents or less is not rounded?

      One or two cent totals — differs across the states shown

    8. 8. What does the system do with a cash total of one or two cents in Indiana, where the recorded outcome is: Operator may round to zero or five?

      One or two cent totals — differs across the states shown

    9. 9. How does the system handle a transaction settled partly in cash in each state shown, where the recorded treatment is: varies by state, listed below?

      Mixed tender — differs across the states shown

      Alabama
      Cash portion only
      Arizona
      Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
      Connecticut
      Not addressed by the enacted text
      Florida
      Only where cash change is returned
      Georgia
      Only where cash change is returned
      Hawaii
      Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
      Idaho
      Not addressed by the enacted text
      Indiana
      Total-amount rule, no split provision
      Kentucky
      Not addressed by the enacted text
      Maryland
      Not addressed by the enacted text
      Minnesota
      Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
      Missouri
      Noncash expressly excluded, split not described
      Nebraska
      Non-cash applied first, cash remainder rounds
      New Mexico
      Not addressed by the enacted text
      Oklahoma
      Cash portion only
      Oregon
      Depends on tender order
      Tennessee
      Cash portion only
      Vermont
      Whole post-tax total rounds where any part is cash
      Virginia
      Not addressed by the enacted text
      Washington
      Cash portion only

    10. 10. How does the system settle a cash refund of a rounded cash purchase in Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington, where the recorded treatment is: Not addressed by the enacted text?

      Cash refunds — differs across the states shown

    11. 11. How does the system settle a cash refund of a rounded cash purchase in Idaho, where the recorded treatment is: Cash refunds may be rounded?

      Cash refunds — differs across the states shown

    12. 12. How does the system settle a cash refund of a rounded cash purchase in Vermont, where the recorded treatment is: Cash refund must be the exact amount paid?

      Cash refunds — differs across the states shown

    13. 13. What customer-facing notice does the system produce in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington, where the record holds: No notice required by the act?

      Disclosure — differs across the states shown

    14. 14. What customer-facing notice does the system produce in Arizona and Oregon, where the record holds: Posted notice required?

      Disclosure — differs across the states shown

    15. 15. What customer-facing notice does the system produce in Minnesota, where the record holds: Written policy required and posted?

      Disclosure — differs across the states shown

    16. 16. What customer-facing notice does the system produce in Vermont, where the record holds: State model notice required?

      Disclosure — differs across the states shown

    17. 17. What per-transaction record would the system produce to show the recorded method was followed in Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico and Oklahoma, given the recorded liability position: None in the enacted text?

      Liability provision — differs across the states shown

    18. 18. What per-transaction record would the system produce to show the recorded method was followed in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska and Virginia, given the recorded liability position: Regulatory cover only?

      Liability provision — differs across the states shown

    19. 19. What per-transaction record would the system produce to show the recorded method was followed in Florida, Hawaii, Oregon and Vermont, given the recorded liability position: Reaches a private cause of action?

      Liability provision — differs across the states shown

    20. 20. What per-transaction record would the system produce to show the recorded method was followed in Tennessee, given the recorded liability position: Conditional statutory shield?

      Liability provision — differs across the states shown

    21. 21. What per-transaction record would the system produce to show the recorded method was followed in Washington, given the recorded liability position: Narrow: price-display mismatch only?

      Liability provision — differs across the states shown

    Sales tax basis is withheld from the comparison pending a direct re-read of each enacted act, so no question is generated for it.

    PDF. No email address, no form, nothing recorded.

    This selection carries more than one rule set

    The findings below come from the states shown, not from any assessment of a system. If it would help to walk through them against the way your own transactions are recorded, we hold a working session at no cost. Nothing is required to download the questions above.

    What produced this

    • Obligation: Arizona (obligates), Georgia (obligates), Indiana (obligates), Kentucky (obligates govt; permits retail) and Oklahoma (obligates agencies).
    • Fields carrying more than one treatment across this selection: status and date, obligation, method, one or two cent totals, mixed tender, cash refunds, disclosure and liability provision.
    • Effective dates still ahead: Jan 1, 2027 (Connecticut and Indiana), Nov 1, 2026 (Oklahoma) and Jul 1, 2027 (Oklahoma).
    Get notified when one of these states changesRequest a working session

    Centsless does not assess a business's compliance, does not evaluate any point-of-sale product, and does not provide legal advice.

    Related references