Archive for November, 2008
A Battle Well-Picked and Well-Fought
November 23rd, 2008
David does best when he can choose the right Goliath.
The Massachusetts volume cap on direct shipment, invalidated last week in Family Winemakers of Calif. v. Jenkins, was a good choice to challenge for at least three reasons. First, there was gold in the legislative record: a sponsor described the bill as “giving an inherent advantage indirectly to the local wineries,” and the cap was openly and carefully calibrated to fall just above anticipated production of the state’s largest winery. Second, the structure of the statutes permitted excising the cap without damaging the state’s basic regulatory system. Third, the statute had the additional feature of requiring wineries to choose between direct shipment and use of local wholesalers, permitting the suit to take a swipe at another dubious restriction deployed by three-tier defenders, with or without a volume cap.
Judge Zobel’s opinion proceeds from her observation that Granholm forbids both direct and indirect ways of subjecting out-of-state wineries, but not local ones, to mandatory use of a local middle tier. Granholm, however, follows precedent in drawing a distinction between state laws that openly (or “facially”) discriminate against interstate commerce and those that pursue some legitimate purpose with only an incidental disproportionate burden on interstate commerce. Courts apply a more stringent test of nearly automatic invalidity to the former, but for the latter give a state more latitude to balance its own objectives against the federal interest in free interstate trade.
Most of the court’s analysis is devoted to showing how the state law came about, which boiled down to a compromise between direct shipment proponents, who wanted a “straight” winery shipment law without a cap, and the wholesalers, who wanted no direct shipment. The middle ground was direct shipment for wineries defined as small, wherever located. If there were no more to it than that, the law could be regarded as facially neutral and therefore vulnerable only if its incidental adverse effect on interstate commerce outweighed whatever benefit the state sought in enacting the statute.
There was a great deal more to it, because the legislative history revealed an intent to set the cap so that no Massachusetts winery would fail to be categorized as small, leaving the producers of most wine sold in interstate commerce deemed large. Judicial principles governing the choice between the strict test , which applies to facially discriminatory statutes, and the more state-friendly balancing test applicable to incidentally discriminatory statutes, contain the interesting wrinkle that a statute whose purpose is shown to be protectionist is treated as facially discriminatory, even if its bare text does not reveal the discrimination. Thus, the intention revealed in legislative history put the Massachusetts statutes in the strict scrutiny category, which would require the state to prove that an important public policy objective could not have been met in any reasonable non-discriminatory way.
According to the state, its objective was to bring the blessings of direct shipment to small producers throughout the nation. Judge Zobel could not see how cutting out the larger wineries served that objective at all, and therefore flunked the statute under both the strict test for facial discrimination and the easier balancing test for upholding incidental discriminatory effects.
Invalidating the statute without requiring a finding of facial discrimination makes the case far more important in other states, where plaintiffs may not be so lucky as to find evidence of discriminatory intent leaping from the legislative record. It also makes the decision itself more robust on appeal, when the state and wholesalers argue that the sponsor’s statements quoted in the opinion were taken out of the context of a true benign intent.
Family Winemakers is also useful to pro-trade advocates in two less direct ways. (1) It explicitly rejects the defendants’ argument that the large wineries were not shut out of direct shipment because wineries of any size that had not sold wine to a wholesaler for six months could ship directly to consumers. While it might seem self-evident that forcing wineries of substantial size to abandon use of wholesalers as a precondition to using direct shipment is, in effect, denying them direct shipment privileges, in future litigation it’s much better to be able to point to a judge’s saying so. (2) In gauging effect on interstate commerce, it put the focus on the large volume of wine excluded or burdened by the statute, rather than (as the state urged) on the small number of producers who are responsible for it. That follows logically from judicial precedent, but again it’s advantageous to have it spelled out in a reported case.
Judge Zobel’s opinion is clear and impressively supported by citations to precedent, aided on both counts by the remarkably well-researched and well-argued case presented by the plaintiffs, but the suit is, of course, not yet over. The state and wholesalers will presumably move for reconsideration, which, in view of the forcefulness of the opinion, represents a dim hope for defendants. Other skirmishes may be more substantial.
What we have so far is an order granting judgment to the plaintiffs and identifying the statutes whose enforcement will be affected by the permanent injunction to be entered. The defendants will surely have much to say about how the injunction should be worded and whether it will be effective during the almost inevitable appeal.
It is important to note that the opinion of the court recognizes, as it must, that the state has the right simply to take the direct shipment statute containing the volume cap (§ 19F) off the books altogether, with the result of shutting down direct shipment for all wineries –i.e., level down. In their original complaint, plaintiffs had asked for a declaration that challenged statutes, including § 19F, were unconstitutional and an injunction against their enforcement. That left some uncertainty whether, in case the court agreed on unconstitutionality, it might grant the wish by invalidating § 19F altogether, leaving no winery with direct shipment, because of the general ban in §§ 2 and 18 on importation or transportation without specific dispensation.
In the summary judgment motion just granted, plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin enforcement of §§ 2, 18 and 19F “against any out-of-state winery engaged in direct shipping to consumers, regardless of the winery’s total annual production or affiliation with a Massachusetts wholesaler.” The court included all three statutes in its memorandum order, a clear indication that the final judgment and permanent injunction will level up by keeping the permissive and licensing parts of 19F in force and enjoining only denial of direct shipment privileges to larger wineries (including those that sell to Massachusetts wholesalers).
Less certain is the issue of a stay on appeal, which the court has discretion to grant or deny. The tenor of the opinion suggests that Judge Zobel will be reluctant to delay the effect of allowing larger wineries to use both wholesalers and direct shipment, though we can expect arguments from defendants that it will ruinously disrupt the orderly regulation of beverage alcohol in the Commonwealth. Moreover, denial of a stay in the district court does not mean the appellants would fail to obtain a stay from the Court of Appeals, which could take a couple of years to decide the case. Ultimately, the legislature can always take another cut at protecting wholesaler interests while appeals are going on, potentially rendering the ruling moot.
Even with questions about when it will become effective and the inability to predict with certainty what an appellate court or legislative assembly will do, Family Winemakers will ripple through all litigation dealing with indirect discrimination against interstate commerce. For pro-trade advocates, that’s cause to celebrate.
Wisconsin Liquor Reporting: Reciprocal (9 months) + Electronic Filing (3 months)
November 21st, 2008
Effective October 1st, 2008, Wisconsin requires electronic filing for reporting shipments of wine into Wisconsin. According to Wisconsin, filing and paying taxes online is more accurate, more certain, and means better business. And, as we’ve discussed previously, it’s also green and convenient. Direct shippers must file their first excise tax report as a permitted Wine Direct Shipper electronically, and are required to file the “Wisconsin Distilled Spirits, Cider, and Wine Tax Return” (AB-130) and the “Wisconsin Winery and Direct Shipper Schedule” (AB-135). The first quarterly return includes shipments made from October 1st, 2008 through December 31st, 2008, and is due before January 15th, 2009. Also, wineries that ship to Wisconsin wholesalers must file the “Wisconsin Distilled Spirits, Cider, and Wine Tax Return” (AB-130) and the “Wisconsin Liquor Tax Multiple Schedule” (AB-131). Shipments to Wisconsin wholesalers must be filed monthly (also due by the 15th of the month), again, beginning October 1st, 2008.
There are two methods for filing the Wine Tax Return and all related schedules, electronically:
1) The Free-File filing application is available to anyone who has a Wisconsin Liquor Tax Permit Number, and you don’t have to set up a special account to start using it. Free-file will save all your data, so you can work on it as you ship orders, save it, and come back to it later. Entering the schedule information (e.g. the name of the recipient, how much wine they received) will automatically calculate the tax form. You can watch a detailed training video for more complete information on how to report using the Free File format. It’s about a half of an hour in length, and is very thorough. I had the best luck viewing the video in internet explorer. Payment options for Free-file include Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), or a payment voucher, which you can print out and then mail in with your payment to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. If you decide to pay your taxes via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), it takes about a week to process your registration, so don’t wait until the last minute. For more information about EFT payments, you can visit the Wisconsin EFT web page, or call (608) 264-9918.
2) The Liquor Tax File Transmission filing method is a quick and painless way to submit your tax return. You won’t have to hand-enter all of your data, which can save you a lot time. And just the same as Free-file, you don’t have to set up a special account, so you can begin using it immediately. This filing method does need some initial development, as it requires the creation of an XML file. If you are computer savvy, you can create this file yourself, or, if not, you could have someone that is computer savvy create it for you (ShipCompliant will provide this service to its clients, in case you were wondering). After you have saved the XML file to your computer, just upload the file using Wisconsin’s file transfer application, and wait for an immediate confirmation of receipt. The Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) payment option is available for this filing method.
Last but not least, for those direct shippers that shipped wine to Wisconsin consumers under the old reciprocity statutes (California wineries only), don’t forget that the “Annual Reciprocal Wine Shipment Report” must be filed for shipments made from January 1, 2008 through September 30th, 2008 (and don’t forget the required dates of birth for both purchaser and recipient). This form can be submitted in paper format. Because the “Annual Reciprocal Wine Shipment Report” only includes shipments through September, it can be submitted now, or anytime before January 31st, 2009.
Family Winemakers Court Win is Big for the Industry
November 20th, 2008
On November 19th, 2008, Judge Rya W. Zobel, in the case of Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, allowed the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Massachusetts General Laws chapter 138, section 19F:
… has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce because as a practical matter it prevents the direct shipment of 98% of out-of-state wine to consumers but permits all wineries in Massachusetts to sell directly to consumers, retailers and wholesalers.
Therefore, the Massachusetts statute in practice prevents direct shipment of approximately 98% of out-of-state wine while allowing 100% of Massachusetts wineries to sell direct. This clearly confers disproportionate benefits on both Massachusetts wineries and wholesalers.
In the decision, Judge Zobel provided a fascinating account of the history of what became Massachusetts House Bill No. 4498. She details the original lobbying from wholesalers, pleas from in-state wineries, negotiation in the Massachusetts House and Senate, passage of the bill on November 17th, 2005, veto by then-Governor Mitt Romney, and finally an override by the Legislature on February 15th, 2006. The detailed account sheds light on a fact that we known all along – that the 30,000 gallon capacity cap was set conveniently above the production capacity of the largest winery in Massachusetts (24,000 gallons). This cap was designed to allow the Massachusetts wineries to ship directly to consumers, while simultaneously protecting Massachusetts wholesalers by prohibiting out-of-state medium and large wineries from doing the same.
The wine distribution system is shaped like an hourglass, in that there are a large number of producers (the top) and a large number of consumers (the bottom), but significantly fewer wholesalers (the middle). This structure has the effect of giving wholesalers greater bargaining power with both wineries and retailers in states where it is mandatory to have a wholesaler. Generally wholesalers prefer to carry a larger volume of a particular wine, rather than an equivalent volume of several wines, because it is more profitable for a wholesaler to warehouse, manage and sell a single
wine. Many wineries produce both specialty wines in small quantities and higher volume wines. It is rare for a winery producing approximately 30,000 gallons per year to have all of its wines represented by a wholesaler.
Family Winemakers of California put out a press release immediately yesterday, hailing the decision as a win for the industry. Paul Kronenberg, president of Family Winemakers of California, was quoted as saying “State laws that protect and perpetuate wholesaler monopolies at the expense of wineries seeking market opportunities and consumers seeking a wider choice in wine, run counter to the concept of free trade within the nation”. Tracy Genesen, lead attorney on the case from Kirkland & Ellis, said “The decision tracks Granholm, since ‘allowing States to discriminate against out-of-state wine invites a multiplication of preferential trade areas destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause.” Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis explained that “Freedom to conduct commerce across state boundaries without undue restrictions was a fundamental principle of the framers of the Constitution”.
Free the Grapes! also published a press release yesterday, highlighting the case as a big loss for efforts by wholesalers to ban “legal, regulated wine shipping”. “Today’s ruling in Family Winemakers v. Jenkins strikes a blow to the wholesalers’ campaign by declaring that Massachusetts’ restrictions on winery-to-consumer shipments are unconstitutional”.
This is a big win for the industry. We applaud Family Winemakers of California, Coalition for Free Trade, Kirkland & Ellis, and everyone else involved for all of their hard work in fighting this long battle. The ruling will certainly have ripple effects not only in Massachusetts, but also Ohio, Arizona, and many other states as current and future examples of such non-facial discrimination will be questioned, challenged, and overturned.
We’ll keep you posted as this story develops. The immediate effects in Massachusetts are unknown at this time (see our post “Why Can’t I Have a Boston Wine Party?” from June, 2007). Common carrier restrictions will need to be clarified before any out-of-state shipping can commence. Stay tuned for more information and analysis…
Road-Trippin’: Self-Distribution in Oklahoma May Be Too Far Out of the Way for Some
November 14th, 2008
On November 4, 2008, Oklahoma voters passed State Question 743 (SQ 743) by approximately a four to one margin. The referendum opened self-distribution for in-state and out-of-state wineries to distribute to retailers and restaurants in the state of Oklahoma, with some restrictions. Self-distribution in Oklahoma is now more accessible to wineries across the country.
In-state wineries are the major beneficiaries of SQ 743. In 2000, a voter referendum approved self-distribution for in-state wineries, only to be struck down as unconstitutional in a 2006 district court decision, due to its bias against out-of-state wineries. Since then, in-state wineries have had to adhere to pre-2000 referendum laws, which require the use of the three-tier system to get products on the shelves and on the menu. But with the overwhelming approval of SQ 743 on November 4, 2008, in-state wineries that produce under 10,000 gallons annually are now able to forgo the middleman and self-distribute directly to retailers and restaurants. However, the relative ease with which in-state wineries may self-distribute is not mirrored for out-of-state wineries.
The new constitutional provision set forth by SQ 743 has also increased access to Oklahoma retailers and restaurants for out-of-state wineries, but with obvious obstacles. While out-of-state wineries can legally distribute to Oklahoma retailers and restaurants, they must own or lease the vehicles used to transport the wines. In addition, use of common or private carriers is prohibited. These delivery restrictions apply to both in-state and out-of-state wineries, but limit out-of-state wineries to a greater degree. These restrictions are not unfamiliar to one of the legislators who sponsored the bill. The Journal Record found that Representative Danny Morgan “questioned if it would be cost effective for an out-of-state winery to drive a few thousand gallons of wine all the way to Oklahoma,” an indication that those who initiated the bill knew of the barriers it would create for out-of-state wineries.
Although State Question 743 opens doors previously locked for both out-of-state and in-state wineries, a clause, stating, “If any part of this measure is found to be unconstitutional, no winemaker could sell wine directly to retail package stores or restaurants in Oklahoma” would shut and bolt those doors yet again. Tom Wark made the suggestion that wholesalers may very well utilize this clause by arguing that it is discriminatory, which would once again take away the right to self-distribute. This clause, in addition to the hoops that must be jumped through in order for a winery to self-distribute according to this referendum, adds to the complicated and uncertain situation of shipping wine to Oklahoma. State Question 743 is a step toward opening up self-distribution in Oklahoma. However, there is much to be improved upon, not least the indirect restrictions placed on out-of-state wineries.
The WSLCB Announces Online Tax Reporting and Payment System
November 3rd, 2008
Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) just made filing monthly summary tax reports and paying taxes a little easier by providing an online tax filing option for wineries shipping to consumers and retailers in Washington. The WSLCB encourages wineries to use their Online Tax Reporting and Payment System which saves time and simplifies the tax reporting and payment process. Users can access the system 24 hours a day, view previously filed reports online and confirm tax payments have been made.
Eligible users should contact the WSLCB Beer and Wine Tax Unit at beerwinetaxes@liq.wa.gov or (360) 664-1721 for account information. The system can be accessed by visiting the WSLCB website at www.liq.wa.gov.
Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
