Archive for June, 2008
South Carolina: Timing is Everything
June 30th, 2008
Expensive permit fees deter many wineries from shipping to South Carolina, but with a little timing, shipping there can make more sense.
For those who already have a South Carolina Out-of-State Wine Shipper’s License, the license must be renewed at the end of August if you wish to continue shipping to the state. The license fee is a costly $600 every even year and is not pro-rated for applications after the start of the fee period. The next fee period begins August 31, 2008, after which the direct shipping license will be valid and no fees owed through August 2010. Therefore, for those wineries that would like to begin shipping to South Carolina should take note of the fee period timing because the license, if applied for now, would be $600 for two months.
Unfortunately, there are a few more costs associated with direct shipments to South Carolina. In order to apply for an Out-of-State Wine Shipper’s License, applicants must first complete the Business Tax Application form SCTC-111 ($50 fee) and the Certificate of Registration form ABL-500 ($400 biennial fee). The completed Certificate of Registration form must be attached to and sent in with the Out-of-State Wine Shipper’s License Application form ABL-571 ($600 biennial fee). Contact Joyce at the South Carolina Department of Revenue with any questions at 803-898-5864.
Ohio Ups Gallonage Cap
June 23rd, 2008
On June 2nd, Governor Strickland signed an emergency measure that upped the capacity cap from 150,000 gallons to 250,000 gallons. The measure goes into effect on July 1, 2008 and amends Section 4301.10(A)(8)(c) of the Ohio Revised Code.
The 100,000 gallon increase results in benefits for wineries and consumers alike. Now wineries producing between 150,000 and 250,000 gallons annually will be able to get a direct shipper’s permit and have access to the state which, in turn, provides Ohio residents with a wider selection of wines from which to choose. However, the cap is still in place, and until Ohio joins the ranks of states which have no capacity caps, both wineries and consumers will suffer.
Wineries that produce between 150,000 gallons and 250,000 must apply for the B-2a and/or S permits with new application forms, however, as of June 23, 2008 Ohio has not yet updated their permit applications to reflect the increased capacity cap. To obtain general information on obtaining a B-2a and/or S permit, visit the Ohio Division of Liquor, and click on “Direct Shipping Information”. To check for updated applications, click on “Agency Operations Section (Liquor Agencies, Spirituous Liquor)”.
Georgia – Amended Wine Special Order Applications Available
June 22nd, 2008
The amended Georgia Special Order Shipping License application is now available on the Wine Institute and Georgia Department of Revenue websites. Wineries will be required to have an approved Wine Special Order Shipping License and comply with new direct-to-consumer shipping regulations beginning July 1, 2008. The new law increases the quantity limit to 12 cases per person per calendar year per winery and allows GA consumers to join wine clubs. The old rule allowing the shipping of on-site sales without a license and prohibiting wineries with distributor relationships in GA from receiving a wine shipping license for off-sale shipments is repealed as of July 1, 2008.
The amended application has a license fee of $50 and must be submitted with a completed sales tax registration application and brands registration form. Direct shippers will be required to pay state and local sales tax, pay excise tax and file reports. In addition, direct shippers must obtain a copy of the consumer’s government issued id or use an online age verification service at the time of purchase. Applicants will be mailed their wine special order shipping licenses along with reporting forms and instructions for paying taxes. Wineries currently holding special order licenses issued prior to July 1, 2008 do not have to complete the amended application and should expect to receive reporting forms and tax payment information in the mail. Should you have any questions please contact Annie Bones in the State Relations Department at 415-356-7530 or abones@wineinstitute.org.
Following is the list of required forms. Click here for a printable checklist.
- Notice: To Wineries with Valid Federal Basic Manufacturing Permits
- Form CRF–002 State Sales Tax Registration Application
- Form CRF–004 Additional Ownership/Relationship Application (If Applicable)
- Form ATT-6 State Alcohol License Application (“Winery Special Order Shipping”)
- Form ATT-104 Brands/Brand Labels Registration Application
- Form ATT–17 State Beverage Alcohol Personnel Statement
- Form RD-1061 Power of Attorney (If Applicable)
Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
TTB Expo 2008
June 17th, 2008
The ShipCompliant research team is attending the first annual TTB Expo at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center, just outside of Cincinnati, today and tomorrow. The turnout here is quite impressive. In the opening remarks, the TTB team said their original goal was to get about 300 attendees from across the country. They had over 650 pre-register, and it seems like the actual attendance today is more like 1,000.
The turnout from the wine industry is equally impressive. We’ve run into a number of friends and partners in the industry from across the country today.
John J. Manfreda, Administrator of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), gave an excellent keynote address this morning, stressing an open dialog between the TTB and key industry stakeholders. They seem genuinely committed to listening to the industry to improve the ease of compliance with TTB regulations. If you have any questions or topics that you would like to get answers to while we are here, please feel free to leave a comment on this post or to drop us a private email at blog (at) shipcompliant (dot) com.
Family Winemakers of California Making Headway in Massachusetts
June 15th, 2008
On May 29, 2008, Family Winemakers of California filed a motion for summary judgment in Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, now before the federal district court for Massachusetts. The suit alleges that section 19F, the Massachusetts law that permits direct-to-consumer wine shipping, is unconstitutional because it “unequivocally discriminates against interstate commerce in both purpose and effect” by limiting direct shipment privileges to wineries annually producing no more than 30,000 gallons. The motion asks the court to declare that discrimination unconstitutional and requests that the court allow section 19F to remain in force, but enjoin Commonwealth of Massachusetts officials from applying the volume cap.
Section 19F was modified to replace a prior Massachusetts local-only direct shipping law, which was found facially discriminatory and invalidated in Stonington Vineyards, Inc. v. Jenkins. The current motion argues that the new text in section 19F was simply a more subtle means to accomplish the same protectionist ends. The bill that amended 19F was vetoed by Governor Romney, who declared that the measure would not cure the previous law’s deficiencies. The Massachusetts legislature, however, overrode his veto and signed the bill into law, setting the stage for judicial determination of which side was right.
Section 19F as amended creates a two-classification system based on the size of the winery’s annual production and wholesaler relationship. Section 19F(a) presents a choice for wineries producing more than 30,000 gallons annually –in effect, they can ship directly to consumers or have wholesaler representation. Wineries producing no more than 30,000 gallons annually can ship directly to consumers while also maintaining a relationship with a wholesaler.
Family Winemakers of California’s summary judgment motion alleges that the “large” wineries are primarily out-of-state and that section 19F, though facially neutral on location, is in intent and effect protectionist and discriminatory. Moreover, the law specifically dictates that fruit wine does not count toward the gallonage cap; the motion argues that a much larger portion of wine produced in Massachusetts is fruit wine than wine produced elsewhere, enhancing the discriminatory effect.
Unsurprisingly, Massachusetts has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in response, arguing that section 19F is facially-neutral, not discriminatory, and less restrictive than similar laws in other states that have been upheld. The Commonwealth’s motion requests that the court join the courts in Maine, Kentucky, and Arizona which have left production caps in effect in their respective states. An amicus brief filed by the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Massachusetts also supports the 30,000-gallon production cap. A key problem with challenges in other states has been the lack of economic evidence supporting discriminatory effects; the current motion attempts to bypass that requirement, in part on the grounds that the previous flat ban on out-of-state direct shipment prevented compilation of economic evidence, excusing the plaintiff from a burden of proof it could not meet because of the defendants’ unlawful conduct.
Oral argument is scheduled for July 29, 2008. If the court determines that a genuine issue of material fact does not exist as outlined in either of the individual motions, the court will grant the motion of the party whose legal argument It finds persuasive. However, the court could deny both motions and rule that evidence is required to resolve issues of fact.
If the court grants the plaintiff’s motion, the resulting injunction enjoining Massachusetts from enforcing the capacity cap and the wholesaler relationship restriction of 19F would, in theory, open the state to shipments from out-of-state wineries. However, obstacles to direct shipments into the state might persist. For example, the decision would not directly affect current carrier policies; FedEx and UPS could continue to refuse to ship to Massachusetts. In addition, an injunction might not resolve issues apart from the volume cap, such as how individual importation limits would be enforced by state officials.
Whatever its outcome, Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins will serve as an important precedent on the constitutionality of capacity caps. In particular, a plaintiff’s victory on summary judgment would significantly lower the evidentiary bar for challenges to thinly-veiled protectionist measures presented as facially neutral.
Georgia Direct Shipper Application Update
June 13th, 2008
Georgia will require wineries to have an approved direct shipper’s permit, pay excise tax, state sales and local sales tax in order to ship direct to GA consumers beginning July 1, 2008. The Georgia Department of Revenue, Alcohol and Tobacco Division is developing a New Direct Shipper Application which will include information about how to comply with the new tax and reporting requirements. The new application is expected to be available by July 1, 2008 and the Department of Revenue anticipates it taking approximately 30 days for the applications to be processed. Beginning July 1, 2008 wineries will not be permitted to send on-site or off-site wine shipments to GA consumers until they have received an approved direct shipper’s permit.
The New Application will be posted on the Wine Institute website as soon as it becomes available. Permits issued to wineries without distributors in 2008 will continue to be valid after 7/1/08. Should you have any questions please contact Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at 415-356-7530.
Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Washington: Making Change, Streamlined Style
June 13th, 2008
On July 1st, 2008, when Substitute Senate Bill 5089 takes effect, Washington will join twenty-one other states that have conformed to the “Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement”. The bill will change the way retail sales tax is collected for some Washington businesses. Beginning July 1st, 2008, any business with nexus in Washington must pay sales tax based on the destination of the shipped order. Previously, Washington businesses that shipped orders to Washington residents could pay sales tax based on where the order was originating from, making local taxes fairly easy to calculate.
The new taxing regulation requires Washington wineries to pay local taxes to every destination to which they ship (via a single sales/use tax return). This could be a bit of a jolt for Washington wineries. With over 300 different tax rates and location codes, based on special districts that cannot be defined solely by city and county designations, filling out the periodic tax return could become significantly more difficult.
Out-of state wineries will see no changes in their tax payments. Destination-based sales tax in Washington should be nothing new for them; out-of-state wineries have had to pay destination-based sales tax since July 1st, 2006, when the Wine Shipper’s License first became available.
If you are a Washington business that ships or delivers goods, be sure to check the Washington DOR’s website for useful information about the change. On this page, you can use a number of different tax lookup tools as well as watch online tutorials.
It’s Not Easy Being Green…But Electronic Filing Makes It Easier
June 9th, 2008
Image, “Office Paper, 2007″ by Chris Jordan.
June 5th was World Environment Day. And in honor of the wonderful planet on which we live, here’s a look at how some states are doing their part to make it easy for direct-to-consumer wine shippers to be eco-friendly.
Generally speaking, businesses are looking to become greener; it can be cost effective, it’s good marketing, and it is better for the environment. There are several practices wineries can utilize when making the decision to become green – recycling, conservation, green farming, renewable energy, and alternative packaging – but one thing that can’t be controlled is paper consumption for licensing and reporting. Direct wine shipping is undoubtedly paper-filled; there are permit applications, licenses, monthly reports, and tax returns – just to name a few – that must be printed and mailed. There’s no doubt that the paper used in the filing of these forms contributes to the enormous rate of paper consumption in the United States. In 2007, 96.7 million tons of paper and paperboard were consumed in the United States and 54.3 million tons were recovered through recycling*. However, despite the fact that over half of the consumed paper was recovered, recovery is not the be all and end all of environmental protection. Prevention is the best and most efficient way to protect the environment from paper waste**. Electronic filing is an effective means of said prevention for wineries who can be required to submit over 500 forms per year, with an average of four pages a form. That’s 2000 sheets of paper just for reporting wine shipments!
Currently, about half the states offer some sort of electronic filing, the bulk of which consists of sales and use tax returns. Excise tax reports and copies of invoices are rarely available for electronic submission. However, North Dakota is on the forefront, offering an electronic filing option for their Direct Shipper’s Liquor Tax Report. Also, Hawaii allows direct shippers to submit copies of invoices via email. States should follow North Dakota and Hawaii’s lead, transitioning from a paper-based system to one that makes additional forms available for e-filing. Ultimately, the goal would be mandatory electronic filing for all forms in all states, if they made it easy. Such a transformation in the process will significantly reduce the amount of paper consumed and help decrease the country’s overall consumption rate, which, coupled with a continuing increase in recovery/recycling rates, will result in a near elimination of all paper waste in the not-so-distant future. Apart from environmental concerns, electronic filing could also increase administrative efficiency, reducing labor and material costs for both the state alcohol commission and for the those submitting the forms. Electronic filing is not only green, but convenient!
World Environment Day may have come and gone, but everyday should be an “Earth Day”.
Arizona Clarifies On-Site Shipping Law
June 4th, 2008
Following our May 6th submission, Wine Institute received further clarification from the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control regarding their continuing interpretation of the on-site sales law. Wineries may ship up to 2 cases of wine per Arizona consumer per calendar year as long as the consumer purchases the wine while physically visiting the winery. The wine paid-for by the consumer may then be shipped at anytime during the year to a residential or business address. The purchased wine may be broken down into multiple shipments during the year. No off-site orders are permitted at any time except by wineries holding a direct-to-consumer permit*. If Arizona consumers wish to have additional wine shipped to themselves in subsequent calendar years, they will need to physically visit the winery each and every year. There continues to be no reporting, tax or permit requirements under the “on-site shipping law.”
*The rules and requirements for wineries producing up to 20,000 gallons of wine in a calendar year with an approved direct-to-consumer permit/self-distribution license are different. Please visit the Wine Institute website for additional information about shipping to Arizona or contact Annie Bones, State Relations Coordinator, Wine Institute at 415-356-7530 or abones@wineinsittute.org.
Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
City Tax in Arizona: Get with the Program… and the Non-Program
June 2nd, 2008
Just as a state can create their own alcoholic beverage regulations, so can they implement their own, distinct, taxing regulations. Arizona has recently clarified their sales tax requirements, applicable to wineries licensed to sell offsite sales of wine directly to Arizona consumers.
According to the Arizona Department of Revenue, sales tax (called, “transaction privilege or use” tax) must be remitted on a local basis. This is the way Arizona tax has been handled since Arizona first became available to direct shippers in September of 2006; tax rates are based on the destination of the order. Most cities in Arizona have the State Department of Revenue collect their taxes for them. However, there are thirteen cities within Arizona that collect their own taxes. These cities are commonly referred to as “Non-Program” Cities. Non-Program Cities collect their own taxes independently from the State. This means direct wine shippers are required to register with all of the thirteen Non-Program cities that they ship to, individually, and remit separate sales tax returns to each of the cites they are registered with.
What does this mean to you? If you are licensed to sell wine directly to consumers in Arizona, you must contact each of the Non-Program cities directly in order to register to collect and remit sales tax with each Non-Program city (this is in addition to becoming licensed to pay County and “Program-City” tax with the state of Arizona). Only wineries that produce less than 20,000 gallons per year can currently become licensed to ship wine directly to consumers in Arizona via the Out-of-State Domestic Farm Winery permit. Wineries that produce more than 20,000 gallons and wineries without a permit can ship onsite sales to Arizona without a permit. In this scenario, wineries are not required to remit sales tax.
The thirteen Non-Program cities are: Apache Junction, Avondale, Chandler, Flagstaff, Glendale, Mesa, Nogales, Peoria, Phoenix, Prescott, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson. A sales tax license usually costs around $50 per city annually, in addition to an application fee, which can range from $0 to $25.
