Posts from the Florida Category
Wine Distribution Notes - Release 28
May 21st, 2008
The latest version of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing or downloading. Release 28 highlights changes in the following categories: Age & Identity Verification, Rethinking Reciprocity and State Notes, specifically Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania. Headings of sections with substantial changes since the preceding release (published in early April, 2008) are highlighted, so that you can easily find the updated sections.
You can always view the most current version of Houchins’s Notes on Wine Distribution by visiting ShipCompliantBlog.com and clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right-hand side of the page.
Florida escapes capacity cap at the wire
May 4th, 2008
It came down to the wire, but the always heated battle in Florida ended with the legislative session closing on Friday with no bills making it out of the state congress. Multiple bills were considered for wine direct shipping, most of which included a “capacity cap” on annual production for wine shippers. The major winery associations opposed all bills that included a capacity cap, and were therefore mostly pleased when the final bell rang without the passage of a restrictive bill. This was a truly classic battle between winery associations and the powerful wine wholesaler lobby.
Lacking legislation that would have created a permit system, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) will likely maintain the status quo, meaning that wineries can ship to Florida without a permit as long as they remit excise taxes and do not ship to dry counties.
The scene at the Direct to Consumer Symposium in Napa on Friday was very interesting. Many attendees were listening to the “state of the states” update on direct shipping legislation, while we simultaneously received updates on the status of the session in Florida. Much of the two day event covered the subject of capacity caps, which have become an extremely hot topic of late. The Family Winemakers of California are currently making their case against the State of Massachusetts that production caps are unconstitutional. The action heats up again at the end of July.
Wine Distribution Notes - Release 26
March 6th, 2008
Release 26 of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing.
These notes are a great resource for keeping up to date with developing trends in direct shipping and direct distribution. As always, you can find the most recent version of these notes at the ShipCompliant Blog by clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right hand side of the page.
Each new release shows green highlighting on sections with changes from the preceding release. Release 26 highlights changes from the last two releases: highlights from release 25 include updates to Alaska, Maryland, New Mexico and Tennessee. Highlights from release 26 include updates to Florida, Indiana, and others. Read the notes to find out what else is new.
Three New Florida Bills: Not the Ducks or the Bucks, but the Winery Shipper Ones
February 24th, 2008
The Regular session of the Florida Legislature will convene on March 4, 2008. During the 60 days following, legislators should decide on one of three winery shipping bills that could be introduced into Florida law. I say should, hoping that last year’s unsuccessful passage will not be repeated. Since 2006, wineries have been able to send relatively unrestricted shipments to Florida consumers. Back in 2006, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) decided to become compliant with Granholm; because of this they have allowed shipments, hoping legislation would be passed. In 2007, many thought they might take this allowance away after all three bills failed to pass into law.
The 2008 winery shipping legislation contestants have several things in common. The bills would require a $1000 - $5000 bond, a $250 permit (the annual application and registration fee for Florida Farm wineries is $100), varied annual shipment quantity limitations per household, reporting and payment of sales and excise taxes, and applicants must produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine annually.
HB 693 (Bogdanoff) - In 2007, the only bill that did not have a capacity cap was authored by Bogdanoff. Unfortunately, this year the cap is set to 250,000 gallons just like the other two bills. Other restrictions that stand out: Fingerprinting of applicants; consumers may not purchase more than 18 cases of wine per household; Age verification (receiving a copy, electronic or otherwise, of a purchaser’s driver’s license; or asking for and recording all purchasers’ names, ages, and dates of birth); if the applicant is owned by a winery that sells more than 250,000 gallons of wine, the division may not issue a license.
SB 1736 (Geller) - Geller was also an author of a competing 2007 bill. The 2008 version looks pretty much the same: The applicant must produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine annually; brand registration is required for all wine shipped; the Winery Shipper must require the person to state that he or she is 21 years of age or older, ship no more than 15 cases per household per year; the Winery Shipper shall offer the brands of wine shipped under this section to license distributors; knowingly and intentionally shipping wine to a person under 21 is a 3rd degree felony.
Of the three bills in 2008, it seems SB 1096 (Margolis) is the one wine lovers and makers will be rooting for the least. Without focusing too much on the regular restrictions, let’s just note the more shocking ones:
Legislative intent
“The Legislature finds that the importation, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages require strict regulation in order to promote temperance by discouraging consumption by underage persons… fiscal health of the state… these purposes are best achieved through the state’s comprehensive system of licensing and regulation, including the three-tier system of alcohol distribution which has been the law of this state since the repeal of Prohibition.”
– Confusing distributor language: “The division may not issue or renew a license under this section if the applicant or licensee has appointed a distributor in this state, unless the applicant provides to the division a copy of a written notice sent to the distributor of intent to obtain a winery shipper’s license 1 year before applying for a winery shipper’s license under this section” (if passed, this would go into effect 4 months from now making it hard to give 1 year notice before the license becomes available.) However, it is later stated that “A licensed winery shipper must offer to its distributor for purchase and sale per calendar year the same brands and quantities of wine shipped per calendar year under this section”
– Licensees may not ship more than 4 cases per year per household. In addition to the licensee restriction, consumers may not purchase more than 4 cases per household per year. For common carriers, the signature form must inform the recipient that the wine is for personal or household consumption only, and not for resale. Wineries must have a written contract with the common carrier saying that the common carrier will do this.
– Knowingly and intentionally shipping wine to a person under 21 is a 3rd degree felony.
Since 2006, wineries and wine lovers have enjoyed relative freedom when shipping wine directly to Florida consumers. Florida is ranked #2 in table wine consumption, which accounts for a big chunk of addressable market share of direct shipments. If any of these bills pass as is, it might feel like you’re living with your parents again; you can go to the party, but you can’t stay out past 8:00. Maybe if we keep putting the pressure on the lawmakers, we’ll at least be able to stay out past midnight.
Free the Grapes! Legislation and Litigation Update
August 8th, 2007
From Jeremy Benson at Free the Grapes! :
Free the Grapes! Media Update
August 2007
Now that we’re at the end of most state legislative sessions, we thought it timely to provide an update on direct-to-consumer (DTC) wine direct shipping as of month-end July 2007. Here are some highlights, followed by a more detailed description.
Highlights:
o DTC legislation was considered in 23 states;
o Two states transitioned from reciprocal to a DTC permit system (MO, WV) with additional states pending (OR, IL).
o The legal direct shipping states for wineries represent 78% of wine consumption in the U.S., although retailers can reach far fewer states.
Wins:
- Florida: the third largest state for wine enjoyment, remains a legal state for winery shipments after a fierce defense of the court order that allowed shipping;
- Hawaii: a concerted effort to reduce quantity limits failed;
- Missouri: transitioned from reciprocal to permit status (no fee);
- North Dakota: increased shipping quantity limits;
- Virginia: now allows Internet retailers without a physical presence to direct ship;
- West Virginia: replaced reciprocal status with permit bill.
Losses:
- Arkansas: DTC permit bill failed in committee;
- New Mexico: reciprocal transition bill failed due largely to opposition by wholesalers and the beer lobby;
- Georgia: effort to replace cumbersome law with permit bill failed;
- Texas: passed a law limiting DTC shipping from in-state retailers outside their particular county;
- Ohio: passed potentially unworkable permit system for DTC shipments, including capacity cap of 150,000 gallons;
- Legal rulings supported the on-site sale requirement in ME, and opposed a challenge to TN’s shipping prohibition.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Wine Institute provided significant input to the following summary of state activity this year.
States with Legislation Under Consideration
Wisconsin – For 20 years, Wisconsin has been a reciprocal state, allowing its consumers to purchase wine directly from wineries as well as in-state wine retailers. But consumers will lose these privileges if the Budget Bill passes as it is currently written. Anti-consumer provisions were slipped into the Senate version of the 384-page, $66 billion, two-year Budget Bill in mid-July. The conference committee will now reconcile differences in the Senate and Assembly versions of the budget bill.
Illinois – House Bill 429 passed both House and Senate and is before the governor for signature. It creates a winery-only DTC shipping permit that replaces the existing reciprocity law. The Specialty Wine Retailers Association was unsuccessful in securing an amendment continuing shipments from out-of-state retailers, although in-state retailers were successful at maintaining their in-state shipping privilege.
Additional States
Alaska –House Bill 34 (Ledoux) would specifically allow in-state wineries to make DTC shipments to AK consumers, with a 5-gallon per shipment limit. Status: passed House and Senate, and was signed by the Governor on 5/31/07.
Arkansas – Senate Bill 592 (Whitaker), a positive bill that would have created a DTC shippers permit for wineries, died in House Rules Committee March 30.
Connecticut — Senate Bill 1204 was passed into law and changes the time period specified in the DTC shipping statute from 60 days to 2 months for the 5 gallon limit.
Florida – Shipping into FL is continues to be legal after competing bills—with and without discriminatory capacity caps—were considered but ultimately died in committees.
Georgia – House Bill 159 (Willard) and its companion Senate Bill 56 (Untermann) would have replaced the state’s convoluted shipping law with a DTC shipping license for all wineries (and retailers in SB56). The bills died in committee. Wholesaler-supported House Bill 393 (Stephens) sought to create new “domestic farm winery” and national “farm winery” categories with discriminatory capacity caps. The bill died in committee.
Hawaii – House Bill 1093 (Say) and Senate Bill 1019 (Taniguchi) sought to reduce consumer choice by limiting shipments under the existing DTC shipping permit from six cases per winery per consumer per year, to six cases per household per year. Both bills died in committee.
Idaho – House Bill 11 would have modified the permit legislation passed in 2006 to allow wholesalers and retailers in Idaho and other states to ship wine directly to consumers. Bill died in committee.
Maine – Senate Bill 54 (Bromley) would have created a DTC shippers permit for wine & beer. The bill passed the Senate on 6/12/07, but was killed in the house later that week.
Missouri — The Governor of Missouri signed SB 299 transitioning Missouri from a reciprocal state to a permit state effective August 28, 2007. The new permit law requires all wineries to obtain a direct shipping permit (no fee), limit shipments to two cases per consumer per month, submit an annual report by January 31, and pay excise taxes. The direct shipping permit application and instructions are available on the Wine Institute website at www.wineinstitute.org/programs/shipwine.
Nebraska – L441 (Mcdonald) will allocate funds raised by the existing $500 DTC shipper license fee paid by all wineries to be deposited to the NE Winery and Grape Producers Promotional Fund. The bill was signed by the Governor on May 30, 2007.
New Mexico – House Bill 1018 (Silva) passed the House, but was killed in the Senate after intense pressure from wholesalers and the beer lobby. It would have replaced reciprocity with a DTC shipping permit for wineries and retailers.
North Dakota – Senate Bill 2135 was signed into law and makes favorable changes to existing DTC shipping provisions, including: increased quantity limit from one to three cases per month, removed “reciprocal” provision passed in 2005 but never implemented, and removed vague language.
Ohio – During closing stages of budget process an amendment was adopted that will create a potentially unworkable permit system for DTC shipments into Ohio. The law has a capacity cap of 150,000 gallons, along with “per family household” aggregate limit that may prevent wineries from being able to ship even if they qualify for the permit. The bill was signed by the Governor on June 30 and becomes effective October 1, 2007.
Oklahoma – Several bills in the House and Senate were introduced, including a voter referendum to allow OK consumers to receive DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries, but a permit system has not been outlined. All bills died in committee.
Oregon – House Bill 2171 (Minnis) would transition state from a reciprocal DTC to a permit system for wineries and retailers. Status: The bill passed the House & Senate, and was sent to the Governor for signature in June.
Pennsylvania – House Bill 255 (Godshall) and Senate Bill 293 (Ferlo) are positive DTC shipping permit bills with a $100 registration fee, two cases per month to any individual. Taxes collected. Status: Both bills remain in Committee.
Tennessee – House Bill 1850 (Todd) creates a DTC shipping permit for 2 cases annually. Provisions: $100 fee, annual reports, annual excise and sales tax payments (companion bill was SB 1977, Stanley). Both bills died in Committee.
Texas – Senate Bill 1229 (Gallegos) was signed by the governor May 5, and limits the ability of TX retailers to use common carriers for DTC delivery outside their particular county. The bill was aimed at pending litigation spearheaded by the Specialty Wine Retailers Association seeking statewide sales via common carrier.
Virginia – House Bill 1784 (Cosgrove) and Senate Bill 1289 (Watkins) augmented current direct shipper permit to clarify that those shipments are by common carrier only, and created separate allowance for any legal shipper to make deliveries of up to 4 cases of wine to a consumer in their own vehicle. Additionally, Senate Bill 984 (Edwards) also became law, creating an “internet wine retailer license” to allow sales by a retailer having no physical premise.
West Virginia – Senate Bill 712 (Kessler) was signed by the governor and, among many other provisions, replaced reciprocity with a DTC permit bill for wineries, wholesalers and retailers.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Maine – As previously reported elsewhere, on March 5, U.S. District Court Judge Carter adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation issued three months ago in the Cherry Hill (Tanford/Epstein) suit. This ruling supports an on-site sale requirement for any sales to consumers, contrary to an opinion rendered in December 2006 in KY ruling that on-site provisions were unconstitutional.
Tennessee – As previously reported elsewhere, the U.S. District Court in Tennessee ruled in favor of the state regarding what most thought was an ill-advised lawsuit (Jelovsek v. Bresden). The plaintiffs alleged that consumers faced a greater burden in traveling to another state to purchase wine in person at a winery than they faced in buying wine directly from a TN winery tasting room. The judge was not convinced, and the wholesalers have promoted their “victory” to bolster arguments for the preeminence of the 3-tier system in all matters.
Texas – All summary judgment motions have been filed. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 21 in Dallas. Wholesalers claim that passage of Senate Bill 1229 moots this lawsuit (see Texas paragraph under legislation, above).
Massachusetts — Motions for summary judgment are expected this winter in the case that seeks to overturn the 30,000 gallon production cap in the DTC law. Family Winemakers of California is the lead plaintiff.
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.
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.
Florida may revoke wine shipping access on May 5th
April 10th, 2007
At least three bills that address wine direct shipping are pending in the Florida legislature in the current session. Senate Bill 126 (Saunders) and Senate Bill 2282 (Geller) both include restrictive “capacity caps” that would prohibit any winery that produces more than 250,000 gallons per year from shipping directly to Florida residents. House Bill 1217 (Bogdanoff) does not include any capacity caps and is based on the model direct shipping bill. Wineries and wine consumers are supporting HB 1217 while wine wholesalers are pushing the capacity caps.
Since February of 2006, wineries have been able to ship to Florida under a determination by the Department of Business & Professional Regulation (DBPR) that helped bring Florida into compliance with Granholm until more permanent legislation was passed. However, the DBPR is now hinting on their wine direct shipping website that if legislation is not passed by May 5th, they may revoke the right to ship wine to Florida until legislation is finalized.
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.
Current ruling:
MyFlorida.com
Bill texts:
Senate Bill 2282 (Geller)
House Bill 1217 (Bogdanoff)
Senate Bill 126 (Saunders)
Related articles:
Sun Sentinel
Business Wire (Free the Grapes!)
Tampa Bay Business Journal
South Florida Business Journal
Jacksonville Business Journal
Free The Grapes! legislative update
March 19th, 2007
Free the Grapes! recently provided an update on direct to consumer shipping legislation and litigation for 2007. As you can see below, many changes are likely to come this year.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Wine Institute provided the following summary of direct shipping legislation around the country.
Alaska –House Bill 34 (Ledoux) would specifically allow in-state wineries to make DTC shipments to AK consumers, with a 5-gallon per shipment limit. Status: passed House 2/14/07 and moves to Senate Community and Regional Affairs and to Senate Labor and Commerce.
Arkansas – Senate Bill 592 (Whitaker), a positive bill, creates a DTC shippers permit for wineries. Provisions include: 24 cases annually, $10 permit application fee, sales and excise tax payments annually. Status: Introduced.
Connecticut — Senate Bill 1204 (Joint Committee on General Law) makes a change to the time period specified in the DTC shipping statute from 60 days to 2 months for the 5 gallon limit. Status: Passed out of General Law on 2/27/07.
Florida – Shipping into FL is currently legal. Senate Bill 126 (Saunders) and SB 2282 (Geller) would implement a version of the industry’s model direct shipping bill, but both bills include a discriminatory 250,000 gallon capacity cap opposed by consumers and wineries. Alternatively, House Bill 1217 (Bogdanoff) does not include a cap.
Georgia – House Bill 159 (Willard) and its companion Senate Bill 56 (Untermann) create a DTC shipping license for all wineries (and retailers in SB56), repealing existing law which prohibits wineries with a wholesaler from obtaining a license. Other provisions: $100 permit fee, 24-case annual limit, sales and excise taxes to be collected. This bill is getting industry support.
The wholesaler’s House Bill 393 (Stephens) includes a discriminatory 100,000 gallon capacity cap, creates a new “domestic farm winery” using at least 50% GA grapes, and a national “farm winery” definition of a winery under 100,000 gallons that uses at least 40% grapes from its state of domicile. Such wineries can obtain a DTC shipping permit to ship up to 20 cases of wine per consumer annually. Status: Favorably reported out of House Regulated Industries Committee on 2/21/07.
Hawaii – Two bills, House Bill 1093 (Say) and Senate bill 1019 (Taniguchi), appear to be dead in committee. They would have reduced consumer choice by limiting shipments under the existing DTC shipping permit to 6 cases annually per household from an aggregate of wineries (current system is 6 cases per winery).
Idaho – House Bill 11 would modify the permit legislation passed in 2006 to allow wholesalers and retailers in Idaho and other states to ship wine directly to consumers. Status: Referred to House Revenue and Taxation on 1/22/07.
Illinois – House Bill 429 (Acevedo) is similar to last year’s transition bill that creates a winery-only DTC shipping permit to replace the existing reciprocity law. Provisions include a tiered permit fee based on size of the winery from $150 to $1,000, 12 cases annually, with sales and excise tax collection. Free the Grapes! is encouraging inclusion of retailers in the bill. Status: Passed from House Consumer Protection Committee on 2/20/07 by vote of 11-0. There is also a similar bill in the Senate (SB123, Silverstein).
Iowa – ABC hearings were held on 2/24/07. The ABC recommended to legislators that the reciprocity statute be replaced with a DTC shipping permit system. Other proposals addressed at the hearing include changing the local winery preferential tax rate, changes in Iowa wine labeling rules for IA wineries, and changes to existing designation of 5% of wine tax revenues to Iowa Wine Development Board. Status: Awaiting action by legislature.
Maine – Senate Bill 54 (Bromley) creates DTC shippers permit for wine & beer. Winery or retailer obtains a COA and nonresident shipper’s license ($100 fee). Annual sales and excise tax payments required. Status: Introduced.
Missouri – House Bill 944 (Cooper) creates a DTC permit for wineries to ship 2 cases per month, and requires permit and tax collection. Carriers must obtain permit. Amendment to add retailers drafted on 2/26/07. Status: Introduced.
Montana – Senate Bill 524 (Wanzenried) proposes changes such as adding “purposely, knowingly or negligently” language to the connoisseur’s license, which does not currently work for consumers or wineries. Status: Reported “Do Pass” from Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs on 2/21/07.
New Mexico – House Bill 1018 (Silva) creates DTC shipping permit for wineries and retailers to replace reciprocity. Provisions: $50 fee, pay excise and Gross Receipts Tax, 24 cases annually. Status: Passed favorably on 9-1 vote from House Business & Industries Committee on 2/25/07. Companion bill is Senate Bill 1047 (Taylor).
New York – Interestingly, Assembly Bill 4345 (Destito) replicates the wine DTC shipping program for beer manufacturers and beer wholesalers. Free the Grapes! has no activities or campaigns concerning this bill because it deals with beer and not wine. Status: Introduced.
North Dakota – Senate Bill 2135 (Senate Finance and Taxation Committee) makes changes to existing DTC shipping statute. Provisions: increases amount of shipments to 3 cases per month (currently 1 case per month), removes “reciprocal” provision passed in 2005 but never implemented. Removed vague language that could have been interpreted to allow an in-state winery to also hold a wholesalers license – clarifies no self-distribution, which was believed to be the case by in-state industry at this time anyway. Status: Passed Senate 1/23/07 and now to House Finance and Taxation.
Oklahoma – Several bills in the House and Senate have been introduced, several of which request a voter referendum to allow OK consumers to receive DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries, but a permit system has not been outlined.
Oregon – House Bill 2171 (Minnis) transitions OR from a reciprocal DTC to a permit system. Would cover wineries only. Status: Introduced. This is the OLCC bill. House Bill 2488 (House Business and Labor Committee) is similar, allowing wineries, retailers and “associations” to obtain permits. $50 fee. Excise taxes to be paid. Unlimited shipments. Status: Introduced.
Pennsylvania – House Bill 255 (Godshall) is a positive DTC shipping permit bill with a $100 registration fee, 2 cases per month to any individual. Taxes collected. Status: Introduced.
Tennessee – House Bill 1850 (Todd) creates a DTC shipping permit for 2 cases annually. Provisions: $100 fee, annual reports, annual excise and sales tax payments. Status: Introduced. Companion bill in Senate (1977, Stanley).
Virginia – Senate Bill 984 (Edwards) creates an “internet wine retailer license” to allow sales by a retailer having no physical premise. Status: Passed both House and Senate and sent to Governor on 2/22/07.
West Virginia – Senate Bill 712 (Kessler) is an omnibus liquor bill, that among many provisions, includes creation of a DTC shipping permit for wineries, wholesalers and retailers. Provisions include: $150 permit fee, 2 cases per month, sales and excise tax payments. Removes self distribution privilege for instate wineries. Original 50% tax increase has been removed. Creates a “wine spa” license, a wine B&B license, and a “mini” winery license to replace farm winery permits.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Texas — The Specialty Wine Retailers Association (SWRA, www.specialtywineretailers.org) litigation in Texas to address that state’s discriminatory stance between in-state and out-of-state retailers is in its discovery phase. Until the case is decided, out-of-state retailers may continue to ship to Texas consumers.
Massachusetts — The Family Winemakers of California reports that its lawsuit against the State of Massachusetts seeking to overturn the 30,000 gallon production cap in the DTC law is still in the discovery phase. Once discovery is complete both sides will be preparing motions for summary judgment for later in the year.
HB 247 passes Florida House
April 28th, 2006
As you recall, Florida is currently open for wine direct shipping under the honor system. In the meantime, the Florida House and Senate are busy hashing out the details of what will become the permanent legislation in the Sunshine State.
HB 247 passed the Florida House Wednesday and now awaits the Senate. This bill would establish a cap where wineries that produce more than 250,000 gallons would not be eligible for a direct shipping license in Florida. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the cap was inserted as a result of a “Big-money lobbying campaign” led by non other than Miami-based Southern Wine and Spirits, who “has given $70,000 to the Republican Party of Florida so far this election cycle”.
A separate bill (SB 282) that does not include a production cap is ready for floor consideration in the Senate. The Federal Trade Commission recently weighed in on SB 282 with their Comment on Proposed Direct Shipment Legislation . This letter is worth reading in its entirety. Here is their conclusion (emphasis added):
Based on our review, FTC staff believes that, if enacted, SB 282 would enhance consumer welfare and allow Florida to meet its other public policy goals. By allowing interstate direct shipping, SB 282 likely would allow Florida residents to purchase both a greater variety of wines and many wines at lower prices. In addition, by requiring manufacturers to comply with certain regulatory requirements, SB 282 would allow Florida to prevent shipments to minors and to collect taxes on direct shipments. However, if SB 282 is amended to prohibit direct shipping by wineries producing more than 250,000 gallons of wine annually, as you suggest is being considered, such limitation likely would significantly reduce the benefits to competition and consumers that SB 282 otherwise would provide. We urge the Florida Legislature to take into account these likely effects on consumers when considering SB 282.
This letter makes a number of good points and also cites some great references. I was particularly interested in their argument that the 250,000 gallon (just over 100,000 case) cap would “significantly reduce the benefits to competition and consumers”. They mention that the cap would exclude in excess of 150 wineries in California alone
Although we take no position regarding the constitutionality of such a prohibition in light of the Granholm decision, we believe that such a prohibition likely would significantly reduce the benefits to competition and consumers that SB 282 otherwise would provide. In particular, limiting direct shipping in such a manner would reduce the variety of wines that SB 282 would allow Florida consumers to access directly. As discussed in more detail above, direct shipping allows consumers to purchase wines that may not be available in nearby bricks-and-mortar retail stores due to, among other things, limited shelf space at such stores. Although FTC staff has not undertaken a rigorous empirical analysis of the effect of a production-based limitation, information readily available to staff demonstrates the impact on variety that such a limitation would have. For example, a review of the survey of most popular wines of 2005 compiled by Wine & Spirits magazine � the same survey utilized in the 2002 and 2004 McLean Studies discussed above � indicates that 25 of the 50 most popular wines are produced by wineries with production in excess of 250,000 gallons per year. Thus, the production limitation being considered would prevent Florida consumers from direct access to half of the most popular wines identified in this prominent survey.
Although the FTC won’t comment on the constitutionality of the 250,000 gallon proposed cap - many other states have also introduced “small-farm” production caps - many opponents of such caps have argued that they will not hold up if challenged in court.
Summary of changing states
April 24th, 2006
Wow, there have been a lot of changes to direct shipping laws this year and we are not even at the six month mark! Many reciprocal and prohibited states are becoming permit states. This is good news for wineries and consumers, but it is hard to keep track of all the changes. There are several states that have passed direct shipping legislation this year that is not yet effective. Here is a brief summary of states that will change to permit systems later this year. Colorado, effective July 1, 2006: A permit is required, but there is no fee. Wineries can ship an unlimited amount to consumers and must pay excise tax. Sales tax is not required. Idaho, effective July 1, 2006: A $25 permit is required. Wineries may ship up to 24 cases to a consumer annually. Sales and excise tax must be paid by the winery. Indiana, awaiting promulgation of rules: Wineries eligible for the $100 permit must have sales under 500,000 gallons with no Indiana wholesaler. The initial sale must be an on-site transaction. There is a 24 case consumer aggregate total and 3,000 case winery total. Sales and Excise tax must be paid by the winery. Massachusetts, awaiting promulgation of rules: The direct shipper�s permit will cost $100. Any winery under 30,000 gallons may obtain a direct-to-consumer and self-distribution permit. Any out-of-state winery over 30,000 gallons who has no wholesaler may apply for a direct-to-consumer permit only. Households will be limited to 26 cases per year. Excise tax is required. In addition, there are some very complex common carrier requirements that could prevent the use of permits even for wineries that qualify. There is one piece of good news, if a winery manages to overcome all of these obstacles it will not be responsible for paying sales tax. Washington, effective June 7, 2006: The cost of a permit $100. Wineries can ship an unlimited amount to consumers and are responsible for paying sales and excise tax. The new laws will not be posted on the Wine Institute website until their effective date, but direct wine shipper applications and tax registration forms will be posted as soon as they are available. I am especially excited about the unlimited shipment amounts in Colorado and Washington. I wonder just how many wine clubs my friends at ShipCompliant will join?
Legislation update
April 10th, 2006
There has been a flurry of wine legislation activity around the country recently…
Indiana: House Bill 1016 was approved by the Indiana House and Senate and awaits signature from the governor. This is one of the stranger bills out there to say the least. It allows for limited direct shipments from both in-state and out-of-state wineries if they get a $100 permit. However, lawmakers inserted a previous visit requirement that says an initial onsite visit to the winery must be made before consumers can make offsite purchases. There is also a requirement that each consumer is limited to 24 cases per year across all wineries. This is crazy. How will one winery know how much wine a consumer has received from other wineries?
Oklahoma: The Oklahoma Grape Growers and Wine Makers Association is pitted against the wholesalers in a battler where the two sides seem too far apart. Although President Gary Butler proclaimed that both House and Senate versions of direct shipping legislation died on the floor, the OGGWMA continues to fight for direct to consumer shipments through lawsuits and public relations campaigns.
Louisiana: Two separate bills are under consideration in the LA House to allow for the direct shipment of wine. The wholesalers are putting up a good fight as usual and of the options would create a small farm winery exception where wineries that produce less than 2,000 cases only could ship directly to consumers. This would merely create an “incubation period” where small wineries could get off the ground before being forced to use distributors.
Kentucky: Compromise legislation passed the House and is expected to pass the Senate that would allow direct shipments from in-state or out-of-state small farm wineries for onsite sales only.
Maine: Two proposed bills and a lawsuit to lift the current ban on direct shipments have muddied the waters significantly in Maine. Resolution seems pretty distant at this point.
Florida: Florida is currently open to shipments, but on the “honor system” until permanent legislation is passed. A couple of different bills are on the table that would allow for direct shipments with restrictions. Florida consumers and wineries are pushing SB 282, which does not include a “capacity cap” that would prevent wineries that produce more than 250,000 gallons from shipping directly to consumers.
Dry Counties in Florida
March 13th, 2006
We’ve received a number or inquiries about the dry counties in Florida. Starting with a little background…
In the new Wine Shipment into Florida page, you will find the following text:
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.
Taking a closer look at Section 568.05, we find this:
568.05 Penalty.–Any person who sells, or causes to be sold, any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer in any county that has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer, or who keeps or possesses in any such county any intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer with intent to sell or dispose of same unlawfully, or who keeps or maintains in any such county a place where intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer are sold, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Many have questioned if this statute would hold if the sale technically takes place in California or any other state before the wine is shipped to a dry county. We contacted the Florida authorities about this question and got the following as a reply - “I would not ship to dry counties. You may refer to Florida Statutes Chapter 568 for details.” Sounds pretty clear to me.
Keep in mind that Florida will likely establish permanent legislation in the coming months. Let’s hope they address this issue more specifically in the new regulations.
FedEx and UPS begin shipping to Florida today
March 1st, 2006
‘Honor System’ in Florida
February 27th, 2006
Wineries shipping to Florida are currently on the ‘honor system’ until permanent legislation is passed. A bill was introduced recently that would establish a permit system, excise tax, and sales tax.
FedEx to allow Florida shipping March 1st
February 25th, 2006
Florida officially opens
February 17th, 2006
In a letter to the Wine Institute yesterday, Simone Marstiller, Secretary of Florida�s Department of Business and Professional Regulation, announced that out-of-state wineries can officially make wine shipments into the state of Florida.
In August, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled in the case of Bainbridge, et al. v. Turner that Florida’s wine shipping laws were unconsitutional. Since then, the Wine Institute recommended that California wineries should not ship wine into Florida until more permanent regulations were established. However, in a memo to members yesterday, Wine Institute President Bobby Koch gave the official green light to wineries to ship into Florida. You can see a copy of this memo here.
The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation - Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issued a special memo for out-of-state wineries on their website. Click here to view the memo. Here are a few highlights from the new rules:
- Sales/Use Tax: “Sales and use tax must be paid to the Florida Department of Revenue by consumers for any wine purchased from out of state entities.”
- 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.” Click here to view the excise tax form.
- Reporting: Wineries must also submit a schedule of shipments made into Florida with the excise tax form. Click here to see the reporting form.
Florida moves one step closer
February 7th, 2006
Pending legislation in Florida would create a limited direct model for shipping wine directly to consumers where out-of-state wineries would need to obtain a $100 permit and pay the appropriate taxes.
