Archive for February, 2007
To Which States Should You Ship Direct?
February 28th, 2007
After showing off beta versions of this tool at several trade shows in January, the ShipCompliant team officially released its latest tool today to help wineries make the most of the direct channel. The State Shipping Break Even Calculator does just that - it tells you how many bottles of your wine it takes to cover the cost of navigating the compliance hurdles in each state.
This free tool is meant to help all wineries create a meaningful strategy for direct shipping. The concept of an “easy state” is now all but obsolete. Instead, choose your direct shipping states based on existing customer interest, level of wine consumption and finally, cost of acquisition. Many of our beta testers were pleasantly surprised about just how much of the US is affordable for a burgeoning direct shipping program.
Don’t forget about our other free tools: Tasting Room Map Tool & Volume Converter. And of course, consider checking out a demo of the full version ShipCompliant!
We’re anxious to hear your thoughts on these initiatives, so be sure to leave a comment on this blog, or via the “Send us feedback” links on the tools page. There is also a handy, “Share this tool with a friend” link on each tool page.
Compliance Events Summary – March 2007
February 24th, 2007
Monday, March 5th, 2007 - Direct Shipping Compliance Seminar
Virtual Seminar hosted by ShipCompliant, FedEx and Wine Business Monthly
1:00 pm – 3:00 pm PST
Attend from your computer (with a phone and an internet connection)
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 – Navigating Direct Shipping
Part of Oregon Wine Industry Symposium (Mon. – Wed.)
10:30 am – 12:00 pm PST
Eugene Hilton Hotel & Conference Center, Eugene, OR
Thursday, March 8th, 2007 - Wine Club Summit East
Part of Wineries Unlimited (Tues. – Thurs.)
CSI – Wine Clubs: Compliance and Shipping Issues
11:15 am – 12:00 pm EST
Valley Forge Convention Center, King of Prussia, PA
Speakers: Bill Nelson, WineAmerica; Mike Younkin, FedEx; UPS Speaker TBA.
If you know if shipping compliance related events and we’ve missed them, please send an email to comments (at) shipcompliantblog.com and we’ll get them up there regularly.
Thank you.
Kentucky posts permit instructions
February 19th, 2007
Kentucky recently posted instructions for obtaining a Kentucky out-of-state small farm winery license. There are ten steps (actually eight steps - they skipped steps 6 and 8!) that a winery that produces less than 50,000 gallons can follow to receive a license to ship directly to consumers.
STEP 1. KRS 243.360 requires you to first advertise your intentions to apply for this license once in the legal section of the Kentucky State Journal newspaper located at 1216 Wilkinson Blvd. Frankfort, Ky. 40601. (502) 227-4556. (Example is attached.) An officer of the newspaper must complete the affidavit of publication, which is also attached. The completed affidavit and clipping must be submitted along with your application.
STEP 2. Answer all questions and have the form notarized. Incomplete or deficient applications delay processing and your application may be returned.
STEP 3. Attach a certified check, cashier check, or money order payable to Kentucky State Treasurer:
Licenses issued between July 1st. and December 31st. pay $ 50
Licenses issued between Januarys 1st. to June 30th. Pay $ 100
WE MAY NOT ACCEPT CASH BY MAIL OR HAND DELIVERY!STEP 4. Non Ky. residents are responsible for providing a statewide police record check from their state(s) of residence for the past five (5) years. If you have not lived in Kentucky for five (5) years, you must obtain a statewide police record check from the state(s) of your residency in for the past (5) years. Web site addresses are attached that will link you to that states’ instructions for obtaining your own background check.
STEP 5. If you apply as a corporation, limited partnership, or limited liability company, attach a copy of your articles of incorporation, partnership papers, or organizational papers from the state of your incorporation.
STEP 7. Under KRS 164.772 Ky. State ABC may deny a license to defaulted student loan borrowers of a Kentucky Higher Education Loan. Therefore, complete the attached Self-Certification Compliance Form enclosed in this packet and return it with your State ABC application.
STEP 9. Attach a copy of your Federal basic permit and proof of annual production. TTB’s federal form 5120.17 may be submitted as proof of production.
STEP 10. Attach a copy of your license issued by the state where your small farm winery is licensed.
The twelve page document, which we converted to PDF form for those that do not have Microsoft Word, also includes instructions for obtaining your state criminal history information (step 4), an example of the public notice that you must post (step 1), an affidavit of publication (step 1), a self-certification of repayment of educational financial assistance form (step 7), the and the basic application for alcoholic beverage licenses. Once you make it through this arduous process, don’t forget about the 53 dry counties in Kentucky.
Thank You to Our Readers
February 16th, 2007
As you might have noticed by the logo on the sidebar of this page over the last week, we have been nominated as a finalist for the first edition of the American Wine Blog Awards in the category of Best Single Subject Wine Blog. We are very honored by this distinction and we thank the team of expert judges that nominated us. Today is the last day of voting, so if you have not yet visited the virtual poll, you can cast your vote by clicking here.
We owe the success of this blog to the support of our dedicated readers - your emails, tips, suggestions, and words of encouragement have made it easy to continue to use this forum to provide up to date news, analysis, and editorial on the topic of direct shipping compliance. A big thank you as well to the contributors of this blog, especially Corbin Houchins, Annie Bones, Sarah Werner, and Jeff Carroll.
I wanted to also take this opportunity to encourage you to contribute more to this blog and help us improve it. Here are a few tips for getting more involved:
- Email us! Send an email any time to the address comments (at) shipcompliantblog.com. Let us know about ideas including (but not limited to):
- Propose ways to improve the blog in general
- Suggest new content
- Let us know about upcoming compliance events or breaking compliance news
- Ask questions about compliance issues - if you’re having a hard time, it’s likely other folks are having a hard time as well
- Post comments. Below each post is a link that says “Add a comment”. Click on that link and use this forum to share your knowledge, opinions, and struggles with your peers.
- Subscribe. You can either enter your email address in the “Get Updates” box to receive an email when a new post comes out or you can subscribe to our RSS feed if you use a blog reader.
Thanks again for your support. I’d strongly recommend checking out the finalists in all categories and voting for your favorites by visiting the virtual poll.
Prorated fees in Honolulu
February 12th, 2007
Most of our readers know that Hawaii started enforcing its direct wine shipment permit law on January 1, 2007 and moved into the “blue” category on the state-by-state direct shipping map. There are 4 counties in Hawaii and each county requires wineries to complete its own permit application and pay a fee. The annual permit fee for the counties of Hawaii, Kauai and Maui are $48. The annual permit fee for the County of Honolulu is $120.00. Now for the good news - The annual permit fee of $120.00 is prorated ($10.00 per month); for example, wineries applying for a permit in March 2007 will only pay $90.00. Thus far, the Honolulu County direct shipper’s permit is the only permit with a prorated fee.
Bourbon County, KY - Wet, Dry, or Moist?
February 11th, 2007
We’re getting word that Kentucky will soon make public the requirements for out-of-state wineries to get a small farm winery license for shipping wine directly to consumers. Regardless of the difficulty of the process that Kentucky unveils, wineries will surely face a challenge in keeping track of the 53 dry and 16 “moist” counties in Kentucky. A moist county is a dry county with the exception of one or more wet cities within its borders.
Click here to see a list of the dry counties and here for the colored map.
Just in case you were wondering, Bourbon County, KY is one of the 30 wet counties.
Washington Excise Tax Confusion
February 7th, 2007
We’ve had number of questions recently from wineries that are confused about the excise tax requirements in Washington. Apparently, the Washington LCB is now just outright rejecting winery submissions if they do not use the correct form.
To provide a little background on this issue, Washington adopted a limited direct model on July 1st, 2006. At that time, out-of-state wineries could apply for a wine shippers permit if they planned to only ship directly to Washington consumers or for a Certificate of Approval (COA) if they are selling to distributors or directly to retailers. COA holders can get an additional no-fee endorsement to also ship wine directly to consumers. Many out-of-state wineries held a COA prior to the July 1st changeover from reciprocity to the permit system.
The question is whether a given winery should submit FORM LIQ-870 or FORM LIQ-778. The answer, according to the Washington LCB, is straightforward. If you are a COA holder, your name will appear on this list and you should file from LIQ-778 and report your direct to consumer sales on line 10. If you are a wine shippers permit holder only, your name should appear on this list and you should fill out from LIQ-870.
Oh, and just in case you weren’t confused before, Washington calls their sales tax reports “Combined Excise Tax Returns” and their excise tax forms “Summary Tax Reports”.
News from Kentucky
February 7th, 2007
The headline said, “State drops out of wine suit: Small operators can ship directly,” but the reported change in direct shipment rights occurred in December of last year. What’s new is that the state has abandoned its appeal, leaving the wholesaler trade association to continue alone in attempting to persuade the Court of Appeals to reverse the pro-commerce part of the Huber/Cherry Hill ruling. (The ruling is not entirely favorable; see the current revision of Wine Distribution Notes for details.) The practical effect is that whatever chance the wholesalers may have had to get a stay from the Court of Appeals, to render the lower court decision ineffective during the appeal, is vastly reduced by the acquiescence of the state in the December judgment.
“New Vintage” of Wine Litigation
February 5th, 2007
There’s an excellent article on law.com titled “New Vintage of Wine Litigation is Fermenting”. The article summarizes the “next wave” of wine lawsuits that will continue to shake up the landscape of direct shipping.
New suits and amended complaints filed in the past year are attacking requirements that consumers must purchase wine in person, with the first court decisions recently issued in Maine and Kentucky. Wineries also are challenging legal shipping limits that are based on production volume.
In both types of cases, out-of-state wineries accuse the states of discriminating against them.
It’s interesting that almost two years after the Granholm decision there are over 30 lawsuits in over 20 states, and almost all of them are trying to clarify what the ruling actually meant. Richard van Duzer predicts,
Ultimately, this will be back before the Supreme Court, which will have to be more explicit about what it said and what it hasn’t said.
Ken Starr also contributes a quote to describe the de facto discrimination,
It appears that the wholesalers are simply seeking legislatively to do indirectly what the Supreme Court said in Granholm they can’t do directly.
Below is a summary of the litigation discussed.
Maine: In Cherry Hill Vineyard v. John E. Baldacci, No. 1:05-cv-00153 (D. Maine), the judge upheld the in-person requirement in Maine’s law , claiming the face-to-face restriction applies equally to in-state and out-of-state wineries.
Kentucky: In Cherry Hill Vineyards v. Hudgins, No. 3:05-cv-00289 (W.D. Ky.), on December 26th, 2006, the judge struck down the in-person requirement, but did not strike down the 50,000 gallon capacity cap restriction.
Indiana: In Baude v. Heath, No. 1:05-cv-00735 (S.D. Ind.), IN residents are suing over the requirement that the initial purchase of wine be made in person.
Massachusetts: In Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, No. 1:06-cv-11682 (D. Mass.), the Family Winemakers of California is suing over the 30,000 gallon capacity cap, which is conveniently just over the production of the largest producer in MA.
Arizona: In Black Star Farms v. Morrison, No. 2:05-cv-2620 (D. Ariz.), five AZ consumers are suing over the 20,000 gallon capacity cap.
