Archive for May, 2007
Florida’s direct shipping website is back up
May 25th, 2007
We previously reported that Florida took down their direct shipping website after warning that the “website will remain as a resource until the last day of Session, May 4, 2007.” Since they took the site down, the DBPR has not given any guidance on a change in policy even though the legislature did not pass any direct shipping legislation prior to the May 4th “deadline”. Well, now the direct shipping website is back up, sans the warning that it used to have:
IMPORTANT
This website is provided for informational purposes only and is not legally binding. The Florida Legislature is considering legislation on the wine shipment issue this legislative session and is expected to pass legislation that directly impacts wine shipment into Florida. For your convenience a link to the web pages of the Florida House of Representatives (www.myfloridahouse.gov) and the Florida Senate (www.flsenate.gov) are provided so that you might be aware of pending legislation; you should contact your legislator for additional information. This website will remain as a resource until the last day of Session, May 4, 2007.
The DBPR confirmed yesterday via phone that there has been no change of policy and that wineries can continue to ship so long as they comply with the State of Florida and Federal laws.
Update: The site is now down as of Monday morning, 5/29.
West Virginia posts new direct shipping guidelines
May 24th, 2007
The West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Administration recently posted a “Direct Shippers Q&A” document on their website. Though somewhat helpful, the answers in the document are mostly a copy and paste from the new statutes. A few questions remain about some specifics on the permit process as well as the audit requirements. We will post detailed instructions about the rules as soon as we receive more information.
West Virginia Permit Applications Available
May 18th, 2007
West Virginia will be the next state to move from the “reciprocal” category to the “limited-direct” category. Senate Bill 712 passed on March 10th and was signed by the Governor on April 4th. The bill states that it will take effect ninety days from passage, which is June 8th, 2007. However, wineries will likely have until at least July 1st to complete the permit process.
The Department of Tax and Revenue Alcohol Beverage Control Administration recently posted the Direct Shippers Licensing Packet. We will follow this post in a few days with much more detail about the steps in the permit process, but we encourage wineries to start the process of applying for the new permit as soon as possible to ensure continuous compliance.
One of the stipulations in the new rules is the prohibition of shipments to dry areas. See this document for a list of the 13 dry or partially dry counties. Some of the dry counties listed contain wet cities and towns that allow direct shipping, and some of the counties listed are wet with the exception of a few dry cities and towns:
County - Dry Areas
Brooke - Only the Town of Bethany
Calhoun - Entire county
Grant - Entire county, except the City of Petersburg
Hampshire - Only the Town of Capon Bridge
Jackson - Entire county, except the Cities of Ripley and Ravenswood
Kanawha - Only the Town of East Bank
Lincoln - Entire county, except Town of Hamlin
Marion - Only the Town of Worthington
Pocahontas - Entire county, except the Town of Durbin and City of Marlington
Roane - Entire county, except the City of Spencer
Uspshur - Entire county, except the City of Buckhannon
Wayne - Only the Towns of Wayne and Fort Gay
Wetzel - Entire county, except the City of New Martinsville and the Town of Hundred
More information to follow early next week…
Direct-to-Consumer Shipping — Not Quite the Green Light for Every State
May 16th, 2007
Appellation America released a great article about direct shipping as we celebrate the second anniversary of the Granholm v. Heald ruling. The article was actually written by Eleanor and Ray Heald, the couple that originally sued the state of Michigan to overturn their discriminatory direct shipping laws. The appeal made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Healds were victorious in the Granholm decision. The article assesses the changes that we have seen in the two years that followed the Supreme Court ruling. Below are a few excerpts from the article:
On May 16, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court in Granholm v. Heald struck down state laws in Michigan and New York that prevented or made it difficult for out-of-state wineries to sell and ship directly to consumers. Small U.S. wineries which comprise the majority of the approximately 4,400 bonded wineries and are found in each of the 50 states reaped benefit of this decision. Yet, the question begs, how much benefit in two years?
“But, for wineries,” Benson notes, “there has certainly been some short-term pain as burdensome legislation is producing time-consuming compliance requirements.”
Indeed, over two years, the winners in Granholm v. Heald are many, despite the end run around the Supreme Court decision being attempted in some states by a new wholesaler approach which is aimed at regaining its cartel dominance and restricting consumer choice in wine purchases.
New Hampshire Updates Direct Shipper Permit Application
May 15th, 2007
The New Hampshire State Liquor Commission has updated their Direct Shipper Permit Application. Changes to the application consist of updating the NH Liquor Commission Bureau of Enforcement mailing address and making changes to the letterhead. The updated application has a shield in the upper left-hand corner and contact information for Chief Eddie Edwards below. The application is available on the Wine Institute website. The outdated application will be accepted for 60 days, after that it will no longer be accepted.
Deadline extended for Illinois House bill
May 11th, 2007
Illinois House Bill 429, which would move Illinois from a reciprocal state to a limited direct state for winery direct shipping, did not see a vote by the May 10th deadline, but the deadline for third reading and final action was extended until May 18th. The bill would create a permit system, establish a 12 case per individual per year volume limitation, and introduce excise and sales tax reporting requirements. These changes would go into effect on July 1st, 2007.
HB 429 would also allow for self-distribution (the ability for wineries to ship directly to retailers) for small wineries that produce less than 25,000 gallons per year. 95% of the Illinois wineries produce less than 25,000 gallons. A few additional things to note about HB 429:
- Out of state retailers would not be allowed to ship directly to Illinois consumers
- A new requirement would help ensure that minors do not receive alcohol:
At the expense of the licensee, the licensee shall receive a delivery confirmation from the express company, common carrier, or contract carrier indicating the location of the delivery, time of delivery, and the name and signature of the individual 21 years of age or older who accepts delivery.
Read the full text of the bill here here:
Read more here:
Florida removes direct shipping website
May 5th, 2007
Florida removed their direct shipping website late Friday night or early Saturday morning. However, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation has given no official notice of any change in policy. Stay tuned for any developments.
Below is an archive of the direct shipping site that was removed by Florida:
————————–
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco
Wine Shipment into Florida Direct Wine Shipment Statistics
|
IMPORTANT This website is provided for informational purposes only and is not legally binding. The Florida Legislature is considering legislation on the wine shipment issue this legislative session and is expected to pass legislation that directly impacts wine shipment into Florida. For your convenience a link to the web pages of the Florida House of Representatives (www.myfloridahouse.gov) and the Florida Senate (www.flsenate.gov) are provided so that you might be aware of pending legislation; you should contact your legislator for additional information. This website will remain as a resource until the last day of Session, May 4, 2007. A federal court ruling on shipment of wine from out of state wineries to Floridians precludes enforcement of the ban on direct wine shipments from non-Florida wineries to Florida consumers. The ruling did not limit the state’s authority to collect taxes on wine or to enforce the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages, including wine, to a person under the age of 21.
The Department of Business and Professional Regulation remains responsible for the regulation of all alcoholic beverages in Florida. To ensure compliance with State of Florida and Federal laws, please review the following important information. Dry Counties Pursuant to Section 568.02, Florida Statutes, it is unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages containing more than 6.243 percent of alcohol by volume in a county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beers. There are currently five Florida Counties to which this law is applicable: Lafayette, Liberty, Madison, Suwannee and Washington. Tax Information Sales/Use Tax: Florida law imposes a 6 percent use tax on out-of-state purchases if sales tax was not paid at the time of purchase. The use tax normally applies to items purchased outside Florida which are brought or delivered into this state and would have been taxed if purchased in Florida. Sales and use tax must be paid to the Florida Department of Revenue by consumers for any wine purchased from out of state entities. Consumers will be required to report the sales/use tax on form DR-15MO. Please review important sales/use tax information. Excise Tax: Excise tax must be paid to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation by wineries who sell wine directly to consumers in Florida. The report of all sales from wineries and the applicable excise taxes must be submitted to the DBPR Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by the 10th of the month for any sales made in the previous month. To calculate and report the excise tax applicable to the monthly sales, wineries must complete page 1 of AB&T Form 4000A-100-W, Alcoholic Beverage Distributor’s Monthly Report, for Imported Wine. The tax payments can be made by submitting a check with the monthly report for the applicable excise tax due or by means of electronic funds transfer. To report the previous month’s sales, wineries must complete page 2 of AB&T Form 4000A-125, Beverages Shipped To / Within Florida. The total sales for each wine category should be transferred to the tax calculation page. Underage Sales Information Florida law prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages, including wine, to a person under the age of 21. View Section 562.11, Florida Statutes Additionally, Federal law requires that anyone shipping alcoholic beverages into a state must clearly mark the container for delivery only to a person 21 years of age or older and obtain a signature of the recipient who is 21 years of age or over. View Federal Law As a result of the Federal law, many common carriers employ guidelines to ensure compliance with State and Federal law. The following information can be reviewed for further information. View General Information Regarding the Regulation of Alcoholic Beverages in Florida |
Florida update: No legislation will pass by the deadline, no word from DBPR
May 4th, 2007
As an update to our previous post about Florida, no legislation will pass in the current session, which ends today. At this time, there has been no word from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation about whether they will continue to allow shipping under the current rules. It seems that nobody knows exactly what the DBPR means when they say on their “wine shipment into Florida” site that the “website will remain as a resource until the last day of Session, May 4, 2007″.
Since the last post about this issue in Florida, Senate Bills 126 and 2282, both of which included the 250,000 capacity cap, were combined into one bill (SB 126). SB 126 is stalled in committee and will not pass in this session. After a failed attempt to amend House Bill 1217 (the bill without a cap that is favored by the wineries and consumers) with a capacity cap clause, HB 1217 is also stalled and will not pass in this session.
We will monitor the Florida website closely and provide updates when developments occur. If the DBPR does not provide official notice of a change in policy, wineries will likely assume that nothing has changed and the current rules apply until they are otherwise notified.
