Posts from the Kansas Category
Hidden Costs of Direct Shipping Licensing
March 3rd, 2010
Before jumping into a direct shipping program in a new state, wineries should consider their current prospect list, market potential, shipping difficulty and costs. When it comes to calculating start-up costs to enter a new state, there is often more than meets the eye. In addition to license fees, wineries may need to budget for a number of “hidden” fees including bonds, label registration fees and other application fees.
Bonds
Some states require wineries to obtain a bond in order to secure a direct shipping license. A bond is a written guaranty, purchased from a bonding company (usually an insurance firm or a surety company), to guarantee that all taxes due will be paid to the state. If there is a failure to pay, the bonding company will make good up to the amount of the bond.
Bonds for direct shippers range from $500-$1500 depending on the state, but premiums, or out-of-pocket costs, to wineries typically average around 10% of the total bond price, or $50-$180 out-of-pocket on an annual or biannual basis. Different bonding agents may quote different rates, so it pays to shop around.
Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and Wisconsin all require that wineries secure a bond before submitting your license application. For wineries that ship 40,000 gallons or more annually, Oregon issues a bond document after the license application has been received but before the license is issued. Wineries that ship less than 40,000 gallons to Oregon annually can apply for a bond wavier.
Label Registration
Several states require brand or label registrations for direct shipping. Ohio, a state that 26% of direct shippers have in their program, requires wineries to register all the labels that will be shipped into the state for a one-time registration fee of $50 per label.
If that sounds pricey to you, consider Connecticut who charges $200 per label and requires labels to be re-registered every 3 years if they are still actively shipped into the state.
Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Virginia do not charge a fee though label or brand registration is required in these states.
Application Fees
Some states may require business, Secretary of State or tax registration, or other one-time application fees. This varies from state to state and depends on how your business is structured. Wineries that start shipping to Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia or Wisconsin may encounter one or more of these fees.
License, bond, label registration and application fees all factor into the true break-even costs of shipping to a new state. The key to ensuring a profitable direct shipping program is to research thoroughly in order to avoid getting caught off-guard with unexpected costs.
Notes on Wine Distribution v.32
February 4th, 2010
The latest version of “Notes on Wine Distribution”, by R. Corbin Houchins, is now available. Release 32 includes updates on legislation, litigation and general discussions on available distribution channels for wine. This release includes substantial changes, including new sections on age and identity, facial neutrality, and logistical support services, as well as updates to state summaries in Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Read about these and other updates that affect the way wine is sold and shipped within the United States.
If you are at all interested in the shipping and distribution of wine, this is an excellent resource that is well worth reading. You can view the most recent version of the document anytime by visiting the ShipCompliant Blog and clicking the link located under “Compliance Resources”, or by visiting CorbinCounsel.com and clicking on the home page link, “Notes on Wine Distribution.”
Add Two to the List of Open States, and Many More Updates, Effective Today
July 1st, 2009
Tennessee, Kansas Open For Direct Shipping
Today, both Kansas and Tennessee open for direct shipping – the first two states to open in almost three years. These are the first states to change from Prohibited to Limited since Vermont in late 2006.
As of today, Kansas residents have direct access to up to twelve cases of wine per address from licensed wineries per year. Kansas special order direct shipping license applications are available online. After registering with the Secretary of State for $36, wineries must submit proof of business tax registration, a $50 license fee, a $50 application fee with their license application as well as post a $750 bond.
Nearly one month ago on June 5, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed Senate Bill 166 into law to open Tennessee for direct shipping on July 1. Tennessee ranks in the top 25 wine consuming states.
Both state licenses are available for order with full concierge service through easywinelicensing.com.
North Dakota Excise Tax Decreases
Beginning today, sparkling wine will be taxed at $0.50/gallon, down from $1.00/gallon.
Nevada State-Wide Sales Tax Increase
Effective July 1, Nevada has increased its Local School Support Tax from 2.25% to 2.6%; a 0.35% increase in state-wide sales tax. This new tax will be collected at a local level. Also, the 0.25% Collection Allowance, scheduled to increase back to 0.50%, remains in effect for sales and use taxes collected.
Local Tax Increases
The following local tax rates are effective today:
- In Arizona, the city of Kearny has increased its retail and use tax rates from 2.5% to 3.0%
- In California, voters in Los Angeles County approved a new 0.50% district tax increasing their tax rate to 9.75% (including the 8.25% state tax rate). Also, the City Council of Laguna Beach located in Orange County voted to repeal the 0.50% Temporary Transactions and Use Tax prior to its scheduled end date, lowering their tax rate to 8.75%
- In Georgia, the counties of Camden, McIntosh and Wayne will increase their local tax rates by 1%, making the total local option tax 3.0%
- In Washington, sales and use tax within all of Wahkiakum County will increase one-tenth of one percent. The new rate will be 7.6%
Ohio Electronic Filing
For Ohio Sales and Use tax semi-annual filers, the January – June return is the first return that is required to be filed online. There are two filing methods available to direct shippers to report Ohio sales taxes electronically:
- Express Data Entry – Upload a .CSV to the Ohio Business Gateway (OBG), and make any final adjustments on the OBG’s website
- eForms – Enter tax calculations step-by-step into Ohio’s web application
If you can’t decide which filing option is right for you, view a comparison of the different filing options (please note that TeleFile is not available for direct shippers). If you have any questions about the requirement, please visit Ohio’s Department of Taxation website, or call the Ohio DOT at 800-282-1784.
Details on Submitting the Kansas Special Order Shipping License Application
June 30th, 2009
As of June 25th, wineries may apply for a Special Order Shipping License that allows them to ship off-site sales to Kansas consumers (on-site sales do not require a Shipping License). The initial costs for the Special Order Shipping License include a $50 license fee and a $50 registration fee. The license will be valid for 1 year from the date issued. The cost to renew a license is the $50 license fee plus a $10 registration fee. Wineries with a license will be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine to any one consumer or address each calendar year. Direct Shippers are required to confirm the consumer is at least 21 years old by physically examining a government issued form of identification or by using an age verification service approved by the ABC. Lexis Nexis, Wine Institute’s preferred age verification provider, is an Approved Internet Based Age and Identification Service Provider for Kansas.
The Kansas Special Order Shipping License Application and Instructions (Form ABC-800 rev.6/29/09) are posted on the Wine Institute website. In addition to the License application wineries are required to obtain a bond for $750, submit a Kansas Business Tax Application, and file form ABC-160 entitled “Irrevocable Consent to Jurisdiction” with the Kansas Secretary of State’s office. There is a $35 fee to file form ABC-160 and a $1 fee for each additional file stamped copy of the form. Wineries registered as a supplier in Kansas and doing business through the 3-tier system should have already filed form ABC-160 and will not need to file the form a second time. Wineries who have already filed ABC-160 can obtain a copy of their Irrevocable Consent to Jurisdiction letter on the Kansas Department of Revenue website. A copy of the Irrevocable Consent to Jurisdiction should be attached to the application or faxed to the Department of Revenue upon receipt. Special Order Shipping Licenses will not be issued until Alcohol Beverage Control has a copy of the document. The Kansas Business Tax Application should be completed by hand and mailed in with the Special Order Shipping License Application.
Wineries located outside of Kansas applying for the Special Order Shipping License are not required to complete Section 3- “Business Ownership Information,” Section 5– “Background Qualifications” or Section 9 “Management Services Disclosure” of the application. In Section 6, Part 2 and Section 8, Part 1 it is not necessary for out-of-state applicants to attach additional documentation.
Should you have any questions about the Special Order Shipping License Application process or forms please contact Annie Bones with the State Relations Department of Wine Institute at 415-356-7530.
Application
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/abc800.pdf
Business Tax Registration
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/cr16.pdf
Escrow Bond Form
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/abc803.pdf
Surety Bond Form
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/abc804.pdf
ABC-160
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/abc160.pdf
-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Kansas permit applications available, Tennessee coming soon…
June 26th, 2009
Late yesterday the Kansas ABC posted their applications for direct shipping on their website. Wine producers across the country can now apply for permission to direct ship wine to Kansas consumers effective July 1, 2009.
Kansas SB 212 was signed into law by Governor Kathleen Sebelius on April 10. Wineries interested in avoiding the hassle of the application process can purchase the license at www.easywinelicensing.com.
Licensed wineries will be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine per year to Kansas residents. To obtain a Kansas direct shipping license, wineries must pay a $50 license fee, a $50 registration fee, and post a $750 bond.
Tennessee will also open for direct shipping on July 1, although the paperwork has not yet been finalized. Tennessee’s license is available for pre-order pending the state’s posting.
Kansas to Open for Winery Direct Shipping July 1st
April 20th, 2009
The Kansas Legislature approved Senate Bill 212 on April 10, 2009. Governor Kathleen Sebelius followed suit today by signing the bill into law, which will go into effect on July 1st, 2009. Although the road to approval contained a few bumps and detours, the original purpose of the bill remained unchanged: to give out-of-state and in-state wineries the right to truly direct ship to Kansas consumers. Once the application forms are available, wineries will be able to apply for a special order shipping license with an initial $50 registration fee and an annual renewal fee of $10. Kansas residents will have direct access to up to 12 cases of wine per address from a winery per year. Another specification of SB 212 is a method of age enforcement, required before shipping to residents; licensees must confirm the age of the consumer by either physically examining an approved government issued ID or using an approved internet age and identification service. Permit holders will be required to remit annual sales and excise taxes as well.
Despite these clear cut guidelines, the House Federal and State Affairs (FSA) committee introduced some potentially burdensome amendments. These amendments include a trigger clause that could shut down direct shipments if any part of the Kansas liquor control act is deemed invalid or unconstitutional by a court, similar to a November 2008 Oklahoma referendum. In addition, the FSA committee inserted bond requirements for special order shipping license holders in the amount of $750, which is waived for Kansas farm winery license holders who must submit a $2000 farm winery bond. On April 2, 2009, a Conference Committee also added other amendments, not related to direct shipping, that address clubs, special events, and temporary permits. Both Chambers approved the amended version of the bill and the bill was reengrossed in the Senate and sent to the Governor.
With the Governor’s signature, the new and revised statutes will overturn the existing “direct” shipping statutes. Until July 1st, wineries are required to ship through the three tier system, a system that is very much indirect. Both of these existing permits require wineries to ship orders to a third party for consumer pick-up. Small wineries must ship orders to a designated licensed retailer for pick-up, while large wineries must first ship to a licensed wholesaler, which in turn must ship the goods to a designated retailer for consumer pick-up. On top of dealing with the round-about delivery process, consumers may also be charged a handling fee of up to $5 per order. Consumers and wineries will have to wait until mid-summer to see the effects of the statute changes, but nevertheless, Governor’s Sebelius signature and the Kansas Legislature’s overwhelming approval (88-37 in the House and 38-0 in the Senate) of SB 212 demonstrate the willingness of elected officials to reform direct shipping statutes to address their constituents’ demands.
As mentioned before, the official effective date for all new and revised statutes is July 1st of this year. We will alert you of any updates and notifications on the required forms for the special order shipping license as soon as they are available.
FedEx begins shipping to Kansas
August 8th, 2006
Following up on Annie’s post below, FedEx is now approved to ship to Kansas for onsite shipments and began shipping yesterday. They posted the change on the state pairing chart on their wine website.
Kansas’ Limited Direct-to-Consumer Shipping Law
August 2nd, 2006
Governor Kathleen Sebelius on May 23, 2006 signed a direct to consumer (DTC) shipping bill in Kansas that gives us only half of what we were seeking. This was an extremely hard-fought battle in a state that had previously banned all DTC shipments. Unfortunately, the success Chuck McGrigg and our local lobbyists had in passing our version of the bill from the House were undermined when the Kansas wineries, faced with uncertainty as to self-distribution, made an agreement with the Kansas Wine & Spirits Wholesalers, leading us ultimately to oppose an important component of the final bill. The new law allows both in-state and out-of-state wineries to ship directly to consumers, although “the consumer must purchase the wine while physically present on the premises of the wine manufacturer.”
Consumers will be responsible for paying the necessary taxes on such on-site shipments. The portion of the legislation we opposed dealt with complex procedures that will be required for off-site purchases. Here, the consumer must identify a retail licensee in KS to which the winery will ship the wine, for pickup by that consumer. The retailer will be required to collect and remit all taxes due, and may charge the consumer up to $5 for each delivery received on their behalf.
A further restriction requires that wineries over 100,000 gallons can only send the wine to the designated retailer via their in-state KS wholesaler, who will deliver the package on to the retailer for pickup by the consumer. Wineries are required to complete a direct wine shipping permit application and agreement, file annual reports and pay required taxes for off-site shipments
Costco-Granholm battle lines forming in Ohio
July 9th, 2006
Ohio wineries selling to state residents operate under a mandatory 33.3% markup system, whether distributing directly or through a wholesaler.
Under past law, wineries outside the state could not sell to Ohio consumers at all. To comply with Granholm, the state accepted a consent decree permitting consumers to purchase directly from out-of-state wineries, beginning in July 2005. The decree makes no provision for minimum markups, and shipments are authorized so long as the parties comply with pre-existing § 4307.08 of the statutes and § 4301:1-1-23 of the regulations and use the new form at www.liquorcontrol.ohio.gov/1516pdf.pdf.
Although the Commerce Clause may not prohibit Ohio’s treating interstate commerce more favorably than local commerce (the reverse of local protectionism condemned by Granholm), the current system could be interpreted as favoring in-state wineries by shielding them from local price competition. More immediately significant is the political problem arising from competitive pricing by out-of-state sellers, to the detriment of Ohio wholesalers and retailers.
Governor Taft’s response has been to propose legislation applying the mandatory markup to out-of-state sellers. A rival proposal would limit all direct selling to wineries producing no more than 150,000 gallons annually. State legislative hearings are likely this fall.
Both proposals raise significant legal issues. Minimum markups were invalidated under federal antitrust law in Costco, a result consistent with earlier cases in Kentucky and Kansas. Volume caps are problematic, with court challenges now in early stages. Invalidity under Granholm is possible, if a court finds the threshold, which is typically just above the largest home state winery, a de facto discrimination against interstate commerce relative to local commerce. Otherwise, the law will be evaluated under an “unreasonable burden” test, in which the regulatory interest of the state is weighed against disadvantage to out-of-state sellers, with a less certain outcome than in cases of outright protectionist discrimination.
Kansas to allow direct shipment of on-site orders
May 25th, 2006
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius signed Senate Bill No. 297 last week, making it legal for in-state and out-of-state wineries to ship wine directly to Kansas consumers provided that “the consumer must purchase the wine while physically present on the premises of the wine manufacturer”. The new laws go into effect on July 1st. The legislation is a small step in the right direction as Kansas was previously a prohibited state for shipping wine. Kansas consumers will be responsible for paying all applicable taxes.
SB 297 also establishes new, but complex rules for off-site purchases. Wineries that produce less than 100,000 gallons can apply for a $50 permit that allows for off-site orders to be placed by Kansas consumers if the wine is first shipped directly to a licensed retailer.
Wine sold and shipped by a person holding a shipping permit shall be delivered to the licensed premises of the licensed retailer designated by the purchaser during hours the retailer is authorized by law to sell alcoholic liquor. The retailer shall collect taxes with regard to such wine pursuant to K.S.A. 79-4101 et seq., and amendments thereto, in accordance with rules and regulations of the secretary, as if the sale were made in this state. The retailer may charge the purchaser a handling fee of not more than $5 for each delivery of wine received by the retailer on behalf of the purchaser. The retailer shall ensure that the purchaser of the wine is 21 or more years of age.
Wineries that produce more than 100,000 gallons must ship off-site orders via the three-tier system.
the wine shall be shipped in the original unopened container to a licensed distributor, who shall deliver the wine to the licensed premises of the retailer designated by the consumer;
The broader effects of Costco
May 1st, 2006
I. Discrimination against Direct Distribution from Outside the State
There seems little doubt that Costco�s reading of Granholm will survive appeal. Nothing appeared in the Costco record to distinguish direct shipment of beer and wine to retailers from direct shipment of wine to consumers.
Most states with wine industries allow local wineries some form of direct distribution. Only Washington extends an equal privilege to out-of-state wineries, a result of the Costco remedial legislation. A few states, such as New Jersey, have taken preemptive action by eliminating or restricting direct distribution rights of in-state producers. Limiting direct distribution according to annual production of the producer is emerging as a common theme. Florida recently arrived at a legislative “compromise” that set the cutoff just above the size of the largest Florida winery, a transparently protectionist measure that may or may not evade analysis as discrimination, but, like all size caps, is open to Commerce Clause objection for disproportionate burden on commerce originating outside the state.
Thus, the immediate concern is with legislation in the states that must level up or down. The Costco decision accommodated state concerns by leveling down (with a stay for legislative override) and thus does not constitute precedent for requiring open access to local markets. Because other lower courts may also find the unconstitutionality of discriminatory schemes in the protectionist measures favoring local wineries, rather than in the more basic regulatory objective of controlling the traffic pattern of liquor entering the state, neither Granholm nor Costco suggests that suppliers can rely on widespread opening of markets to direct distribution.
II. Posting and Ancillary Restraints
Costco illustrates a great divide in basic Sherman Act jurisprudence. For some observers, no contract, combination, or conspiracy can be inferred from private actors� facially unilateral acquiescence in state restraints, even if the effects are anticompetitive. That is, roughly, the Fisher v. Berkeley view. See, e.g., Sisters of St. Vincent Health Services, Inc. v. Morgan County, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1046 (S.D. Ind. 2005), citing Massachusetts Food Ass’n v. Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm’n, 197 F.3d 560, 564-66 (1st Cir.1999).
Naturally, the district court in Seattle regarded Miller v. Hedlund as controlling 9th Circuit precedent. The reasoning in Miller is difficult to pin down. It appears influenced by anticompetitive effects (which we know are alone insufficient), but also to rely on the participation of private actors, consisting of filling in the blanks of a posting system which was then enforced by the state. The opinion mentions potential for collusion, but does not seem to require it. Last December�s antitrust rulings in Costco clearly rest on the wholesaler�s participation in the form of supplying prices that then become mandatory by the power of the state, resulting in a hybrid system requiring state supervision (which was lacking in Washington’s case) to survive preemption. However, all the U.S. Supreme Court authority overturning price posting deals with systems that require or condone private conduct that itself violate the Sherman Act. The Costco judge, like the Court of Appeals in Miller, seems to find a combination by, so to speak, putting the state in the same room with each private actor who posts a price. By contrast, Midcal and the other Supreme Court cases invalidating price posting laws deal with systems that send the private actors to a room where they constitute the unlawful combination on their own. How the Fisher-Miller dissonance resolves is, I think, the most important issue for the Costco appeal.
Another significant issue in applying Costco to the law in other states is the extent to which the cluster of other restraints that frequently accompany posting would fall with it. I see three bases on which that might occur. First, the court might conclude that the system is so integrated that the legislature would not have enacted the other restraints if it had known posting itself to be illegal. Second, on general principles of equity, a court issuing an injunction against unlawful conduct has power to enjoin lawful conduct associated with it if necessary to render complete relief from the threatened harm. Third, a court might conclude that the other restraints constituted per se antitrust violations on their own, which appears as an alternative basis for decision in the December opinion on summary judgment motions, incorporated by reference in the conclusions of law for the final judgment.
That third possible approach would extend Costco�s effects to more states, including some without price posting. It is, however, the most controversial of the three, as it requires finding a public-private hybrid restraint without an overt role for private parties, such as providing prices the state then enforces.
In sum, Costco is not carte blanche for ignoring other states’ posting laws, although within the Ninth Circuit an aggressive position could be justified. As a rough first look, here are some immediately vulnerable points: AZ quantity discount limits, CA beer posting, CT posting, DE delivered wholesale pricing, FL malt beverage price change waiting period and possibly the limits on quantity discounts, GA posting, HI possibly restrictions on quantity discounts, ID posting, IN posting, IA posting (possibly), KS posting (possibly), ME posting and discount restraints, MD posting and quantity discount ban (already analyzed in TFWS I through III), MA posting, MI posting and quantity discount ban, MN posting and possibly restriction on quantity discounts, MO posting and 1% limit on quantity discounts, NH beer posting, NY posting (including amendments effective in September), NC quantity discount ban, OH posting, OK posting and quantity discount ban, OR price record-keeping (possibly, because of deterrent effect on spot pricing) and price uniformity requirement, SD posting, TN posting and quantity discount ban, VT posting, VA posting, WV beer posting.
III. Central Warehousing
Central warehousing bans are difficult to analyze, because (unlike the case in Washington) they are often based on interpretation of retail license privileges or tied house laws, rather than on express prohibition. Caveats regarding ultimate application of Costco to posting and its ancillary restraints apply strongly to central warehousing bans, because they may appear more severable from direct restraint on price than, e.g., quantity discount bans. The Costco antitrust opinion of December and the recent findings of fact and conclusions of law do not present a clear rationale for distinguishing the central warehousing ban, which it classified as an antitrust violations, from the retailer-to-retailer sales ban, which it found was unilateral state action not preempted by federal antitrust law. Thus, it is difficult to predict how courts, even those following the Miller v. Hedlund line on antitrust combinations, will respond to the Costco ruling if asked to evaluate central warehousing in other states.
The following represents a currently incomplete survey of states potentially affected by Costco on use of central retail warehouses:
Central retail warehouses banned: AL, AR, CO, DE, ID, IL, IA, KS, MD, MI, NH, NM
Not banned: AK, AZ, CA, CT, DC, MA, OR
We are still researching the status of central warehousing in the states not listed above.
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?
Kansas to open?
February 3rd, 2006
We noted earlier that Kansas was revisiting their laws and leaning towards prohibition. However, a new bill sent to the Senate would open up direct shipments to retailers and consumers, as long as the consumers pick up the wine at a licensed liquor store. Lawmakers in Kansas are keeping a close eye on the Costco case in Washington.
Kansas revisits wine shipping laws
January 25th, 2006
A pending bill in the Kansas Legislature would prohibit the direct shipment of wine to consumers altogether. Currently, Kansas in-state wineries can sell directly to consumers, but out-of-state wineries are required to use the three-tier system. This uneven treatment was deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in May 2005. As a result of the ruling, states can essentially either allow direct shipments from all US wineries or prohibit all direct shipments. So far, Kansas seems to be leaning towards prohibition.
