Archive for February, 2007
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.
“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.
