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.

Share This

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.”

Click Here to View NWD Release 32

Share This

New York has recently amended its alcohol beverage tax regulations to allow certain wine distributors to file Form MT-40 (Wine Tax Return) on an annual basis rather than a monthly basis. Out-of-State wineries must be licensed by the New York State Liquor Authority as a direct shipper and submit the “Application for Annual Tax Return Filing Status for Certain Beer and Wine Manufacturers” (Form MT-38) in order to receive annual filing status. Form MT-40 should be submitted on a monthly basis until the Tax Department confirms that the request for annual filing status has been approved. Additional information can be found in the notice entitled, “Annual Filing Option Available for Certain Wine Distributors,” published by the Department of Taxation and Finance on June 24, 2009.

Form MT-38 Annual Filing Status Application
Form MT-40 (Monthly filing)

-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute

Share This

Anyone hoping the intermediate appellate court reversed in Granholm had become pro-commerce would have been disappointed by the July 1st decision of the Second Circuit in Arnold’s Wines, Inc. v. Boyle.

At issue was whether a state permitting its local retail licensees to ship directly to consumers might constitutionally deny out-of-state retail licensees equivalent access. The Court of Appeals reached the less than crystalline conclusion that discrimination against interstate sellers is permissible under the 21st Amendment “insofar as it requires that all liquor sold within the State of New York pass through New York’s three-tier regulatory system.”

Judge Wesley, writing for an essentially undivided three-member panel, asserts that the locals-only licensing system “allows the state to oversee” (1) financial relationships among manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers,” which relate to state tied-house statutes limiting vertical integration, and (2) the prices and other terms of sale, which the state purports to regulate with the objective of averting overconsumption and disorderly marketing. He also notes that New York claims the system allows the state to collect taxes more efficiently than with alternative systems and to prevent sales to minors.

One cannot accurately maintain that the challenged licensing system “allows” those regulatory objectives in the sense of being necessary to achieve them. It is even less defensible to assert that location discrimination in applying a licensing system is necessary to oversee financial relationships and sales terms, to collect taxes with acceptable efficiency, or to prevent underage purchases. Thus, the court cannot escape the question whether less discriminatory means exist –unless it takes the discrimination entirely out of Granholm’s analysis of discriminatory laws. Most of the opinion is an attempt to do just that.

To circumvent the nondiscriminatory means issue, Judge Wesley articulates the “narrow Granholm” 21st Amendment-Commerce Clause theory: “It is only where states create discriminatory exceptions to the three-tier system, allowing in-state, but not out-of-state, liquor to bypass the three regulatory tiers, that their laws are subject to invalidation based on the Commerce Clause.” His opinion recognizes (or carves) an exception to the equal access principle, based on the famous North Dakota statement that the 21st Amendment “empowers [a state] to require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler (emphasis supplied),” even though that text appears in Granholm only as a “see also” citation that is not part of the Granholm holding and is also dictum in North Dakota itself. He does not overtly consider whether Granholm’s undoubted assertion of the legitimacy of three-tier systems includes the qualification (arguably inherent in the Granholm holding) that such systems may not employ location discrimination unless it is necessity-justified by some purpose other than perpetuation of the system itself. Without inclusion of that qualifier, it is easy to stop analyzing the Granholm opinion for effects on tiered distribution when one reaches its quotation from North Dakota.

Thus, Arnold’s Wines puts us squarely into the fundamental uncertainty about Granholm: Are only what the majority calls “valid” or “generally applicable” (i.e., location-nondiscriminatory) restrictions permissible, even in areas of traditional state’s rights under the 21st Amendment, as Justice Thomas says disapprovingly in his dissent, or is there something special about passage of title through a wholesaler that provides ipso facto legitimacy to location discrimination between in-state and out-of-state resellers of the product?

Clearly in the second camp, the Arnold’s Wines majority opinion advances two propositions as rationales for its decision:

1. The “three-tier system” means goods physically moving through all three tiers, the lower two of which are located in the same state as the consumer who purchases the goods. A ruling requiring equal access to the same consumers by out-of-state retailers is therefore an attack on the three-tier system, which would not be consistent with Granholm, because the majority in that case said the three-tier system is unquestionably legitimate.

2. New York’s law “treats in-state and out-of-state liquor evenhandedly” once it is in the state’s three-tier system, and “thus complies with Granholm’s nondiscrimination principle.” Equal treatment of products by allowing them all, regardless of original site of manufacture, to pass through the three-tier system, satisfies Commerce Clause requirements, even if the law prohibits interstate sellers to reach the same consumers as local sellers. The dormant Commerce Clause protects goods, not merchants.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Calabresi agrees with his colleagues’ reasoning, but adds an eloquent originalist plea for judicial caution in “updating” constitutional provisions that (unlike, e.g., due process of law) are not drafted loosely with an implied invitation to reinterpret them as society changes. One has the impression he wishes he could have restrained the impetuosity of the Granholm majority. He was, in any event, determined not to extend that opinion’s 2005 update of the 21st Amendment beyond his panel’s delimited reading.

Relatively short in comparison to the complexity of the issues, the majority opinion does not address a number of questions raised by its stated rationales.

In the first place, it is not at all clear that Judge Wesley’s three-tier system is the same thing as the three-tier system declared legitimate in Granholm. The Granholm majority unmistakably implies there are such things as constitutional systems funneling all wine sales through local wholesalers, but is silent (to the exasperation of Justice Thomas) on how they would operate without producing impermissible favoritism toward local versus interstate commerce. One court has already attempted to resolve the conundrum by preserving a state requirement that sales go through a locally licensed wholesaler, but requiring the state to process retail license applications without location discrimination. If one adds drop shipment to that scenario, it becomes possible to run all sales through an in-state distributor (who would presumably also be responsible for tax and price reporting) and avoid location discrimination in access to local consumers.

Ultimately, the first rationale rests on the court’s pronouncement that unequal access to customers by retailers is “part of the three-tier licensing structure” (vice distribution system) established in New York. When the court concludes that exemption of unequal access from Commerce Clause scrutiny is established by that proposition, it is committing what a logician would call a mereological fallacy. That is, assuming the state’s licensing structure could be part of a three-tier system, it does not follow that special exempted status accorded three-tier systems applies to each part of it. That logical gap would exist even if the North Dakota dictum were established law, and even if one further assumed that all members of the class “three-tier systems” were exempt from the dormant Commerce Clause.

With respect to the second rationale, the Court of Appeals may have made a bold departure from the conceptual underpinnings of Commerce Clause jurisprudence in its attempt to diminish Granholm’s scope. Most judges and commentators have assumed that the Commerce Clause is intended to protect commerce, not merely choice of manufacturing site. It is, of course, entirely proper for a court to attempt to limit a disliked precedent to its specific facts, but drawing the line at products, excluding protection of downstream merchants, seems extreme.

Judge Wesley may have been forced to an extreme position to support his assertion that the facts before him were in “stark contrast” to those of Granholm. Viewed from another angle, the distance between the cases does not appear so great. Mrs. Swedenburg’s wines and those of the other Granholm plaintiffs had equal rights with New York wines to direct delivery to New York consumers from bricks-and-mortar locations within New York. That may not be so easy to distinguish from the Arnold’s Wines plaintiffs’ equal right to sell to New York consumers through bricks-and-mortar wholesalers and retailers within New York. One need not read Granholm very broadly to conclude that if the former was invalid, the validity of the latter is at least questionable.

Because the court seems to believe no nondiscriminatory means inquiry is necessary, its reference to state purposes may be only a makeweight. However, it is worth noting that the listed objectives themselves are not all necessarily legitimate. If the purpose of tied-house laws is to prevent supplier interests in New York retailers, regulation of sales by those retailers within New York is sufficient. Only if New York’s objective is to prevent such interests in retailers located in other states is it necessary to “oversee” the financial relationships of those sellers. That objective, however, raises significant issues of extraterritoriality. In a 1989 beer pricing case, the Supreme Court enunciated limits on state legislation, 21st Amendment notwithstanding, short of regulating conduct that occurs entirely outside the state (which would appear to include financial relationships among entities in another state, whether or not one of them sells into the state) or causing a patchwork of different requirements for businesses engaged in interstate commerce (as seems the case, given the widely differing requirements of state tied-house laws). Those limitations suggest that tied-house oversight of out-of-state sellers is a not legitimate purpose that can be advanced to justify discrimination. Worse, extraterritorial effect of state laws is ordinarily considered not merely discrimination against, but direct state regulation of, interstate commerce –an unconstitutional invasion of the federal sphere that cannot be rendered legal by laudable purpose.

In sum, Arnold’s Wines is a forceful formulation of the narrow Granholm position, with a forthright end run around less-discriminatory-means analysis. Its clarity emphasizes the developing differences among federal circuits in understanding that landmark case. While it is doubtful the Supreme Court has much appetite for revisiting Granholm, divergent interpretations at the intermediate level slowly increase the probability of high court review.

by R. Corbin Houchins, CorbinCounsel.com

Share This

The New York State Department of Tax and Finance recently sent a notice to direct shippers who filed and paid taxes on May shipments using form MT-40 to inform wine distributors and wineries that the paper form mailed by the state was an old version, reflecting old tax rates applicable only to orders placed before the May 1, 2009 excise tax increase. The notice requests taxpayers to send an amended return with any additional payments. The new form, with corrected tax rates, displays a revised date of “5-09″, and is available online. Forms downloaded from ShipCompliant or from New York’s website after May 1st displayed the correct tax amount.

Share This

The wine excise tax rate in New York will increase on May 1, 2009 from $0.1893 per gallon to $0.30 per gallon. Wine Institute was part of a coalition of industry members that actively opposed the NY Governor’s proposal for a wine excise tax and demonstrated the detrimental effects an excise tax increase would have on the economy. These efforts resulted in the original proposal for a $0.32 increase being reduced to only $0.1107 per gallon.

In other news North Dakota will no longer have a separate tax category for sparkling wine. Beginning July 1, 2009 sparkling wine will be taxed at $0.50 per gallon, the same rate as table wine. This is a significant decrease from the current excise tax of $1.00 per gallon of sparkling wine.

-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute

Share This

On July 1st, 2008, New York announced that their semi-annual “New York Wine Manufacturer’s Report of All Wine Directly Sold and Shipped” is required to be filed online. Shipments made from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008 must be reported to the New York Liquor Authority by July 15th, 2008. Online submission of the report consists of emailing data files, in a .csv or .xls format to Direct.Shipment@abc.state.ny.us.

Even though the new reporting format was forced upon direct shippers rather abruptly, for many, filing the Wine Manufacturer’s Report electronically is a much more reasonable request than the old paper format. Because the old paper format contained only twelve rows per page on which to report detailed order information (one product per row, per shipment), the report was sometimes more than 500 pages long! That’s some serious paper waste.

Information that is reported in the new electronic format is very similar to the information reported in the old paper format. Among details to be reported via the data file: product name, COLA numbers for each product shipped, quantity shipped, price paid by the purchaser, the name and address of the purchaser, and the name and address of the common carrier.

You can view further information on the new requirement and New York’s instructions for submission on the New York State Liquor Authority’s website. Remember, the use of paper forms to submit the required information is no longer permitted. All reports containing the required information must be submitted by way of a computer data file.

Share This

The February 26, 2008 decision by an Arizona federal district court in Black Star Farms LLC v. Oliver supports an in-person purchase requirement, one of the principal legislative attacks on the level-field principle enunciated in Granholm.

In-person purchase as a precondition to direct shipment solves a fundamental political problem for the middle tier. Although Granholm allows states to eliminate discrimination against interstate direct shipment by forbidding in-state shipment, pursuing that “level down” strategy requires extravagant expenditure of political capital, because it constitutes a death sentence for a significant fraction of local wineries. Thus, wholesaler trade associations are faced with reconciling survival of direct shipment for local wineries with the core objective of forcing wineries in other states to go through three tiers, a conceptual problem after Granholm.

The solution is the “accident of geography” theory, which contends that the impracticality of, e.g., an Arizona consumer’s visiting a Yakima Valley winery to place an order for a wine advertised on the Internet, compared to the convenience of visiting an Arizona winery for the same purpose, does not discriminate against interstate commerce. The Black Star court, like a New York federal district court in Buy Right, Inc. v. Boyle and a Tennessee federal district court in Jelovsek v. Bresden, appears to have bought the theory; federal district courts in the Kentucky case, Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC v. Hudgins, and the Indiana case, Baud v. Heath, rejected it. Appeals are reportedly under way in the fourth, sixth and seventh federal circuits; if the plaintiffs appeal in Black Star, the ninth circuit will also be involved.

At first impression, the wholesalers’ argument does not seem logical. With respect to governmental restrictions, the Commerce Clause is supposed to provide equal access to markets for interstate commerce originating in any location. True, it does not require states to neutralize natural effects of geography, such as the greater cost of shipping from a distant point, but the trade restriction in question arises from the legislative pen, not from geography itself. For legislation, the Commerce Clause supports location parity by voiding state enactments with substantial discriminatory effects, including the effect of leveraging location advantages of local businesses against distant competitors.

Ironically, the court in Black Star appears to have recognized that aspect of the Commerce Clause, as it cited a 1994 Supreme Court case on the subject, C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, which invalidated a facially neutral city ordinance requiring all nonhazardous solid waste received and processed in the town to be deposited at the defendant township’s transfer station. The fatal flaw of the Clarkstown ordinance was that in practice it favored local waste management business to the exclusion of all non-local competition, which sounds pretty similar to a three-tier requirement for out-of-state businesses, but the Black Star court decided not to follow that precedent for reasons that are difficult to divine in its opinion.

There is, nevertheless, a solid basis for the anti-trade result in Black Star and other recent cases, which is widely (and perhaps erroneously) understood as endorsement of a geographic accident defense to Granholm-based suits. If there were only one message I’d want readers of these blogs and Notes on Wine Distribution to take away from discussion of Granholm, it would be the enormous evidentiary difference between a facial discrimination case like Granholm itself and a de facto discrimination case like Black Star. The latter category, which includes challenges to volume caps as well as to on-site limitations, requires much more extensive preparation, with economic expert testimony, to satisfy the plaintiffs’ substantial burden of proof. The Black Star judge underlines that point in refusing to reach the same result as Hudgins and Baude: “However, Plaintiffs proffer no evidence to suggest that such a limited exception, applicable to both in-state and out-of-state wineries, erects a barrier to Arizona’s wine market that in effect creates a burden that alters the proportional share of the wine market in favor of in-state wineries, such that out-of-state wineries are unable to effectively compete in the Arizona market.” Providing the kind of evidence the court would have to see before invalidating a facially neutral statute adds something like $150,000 on top of all the other costs of the litigation, which should be a sobering, but not surprising, fact for enthusiasts of law reform by litigation, and especially for those who think Granholm provides a lay-down slam in direct shipment cases.

Share This

On January 14, 2008, a district court in Texas rendered a mostly pro-trade decision in Siesta Village Market, LLC v. Perry that clarified much, but danced around the hottest issue, leaving the final veil in place.

The case upholds the basic Specialty Wine Retailers contention that a state that allows its retailers to deliver to consumers must permit direct shipment by out-of-state retailers. It also has some important things to say about the meaning of Granholm’s less pellucid passages. In particular, it attempts to deal with the most significant internal tension of the Granholm majority opinion, viz., the difficulty of squaring the holding of the opinion, that states cannot require out-of-state wineries to become residents as a condition to reaching local markets, with a dictum-within-a-dictum quoted from a 1990 Supreme Court case, North Dakota v. United States, to the effect that the 21st Amendment empowers states “to require that all liquor sold for use in the State be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler.” (For an explanation of the difference between holdings and dicta, see the blog post, Discrimination Against Out-of-State Retailers After Granholm).

The Siesta Village decision and its implications merit further discussion, in particular on the following points:

1. Texas had a “citizenship” requirement of at least a year’s residence in the state for most licenses. It had already been declared unconstitutional when applied to newly arriving wholesalers with physical premises within the state. Siesta Village goes farther by analyzing the statute as a location requirement and holding it unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, to the extent it prevented issuance of the requisite retailing licenses to out-of-state retailers.

2. The Siesta Village judge takes Granholm as a location parity case, and his opinion is explicit that physical presence requirements “plainly discriminate against interstate commerce.” However, like every analyst of Granholm, he had to deal with a key question posed by the quotation from North Dakota, noted above: If a state has the right to require all wine to “be purchased from a licensed in-state wholesaler,” how does one give effect to the Commerce Clause policy against location discrimination? One way of resolving the issue is to require the state to accept methods of consummating the purchase requirement that do not substantially burden interstate commerce relative to local, such as running the sale through the local middle tier without requiring the wine to take an economically disadvantageous logistical path when sold by an out-of-state retailer. Another is to declare that the quotation is dicta and therefore not binding in applying the Granholm holding to a different chain of distribution where its effect on commerce is more problematic –rather too bold a departure to expect in a district court opinion. In the event, the judge simply let the contradiction lie, holding that the retailers have to comply with Texas laws requiring a state retail license and purchase from a Texas-licensed wholesaler, a deferral that has been described as a ticket to the next round of litigation. Meanwhile, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission has informally commented that it is not their problem.

3. Experts disagree on the extent to which Granholm was a “weak record case” that could have gone the other way had the states made a better showing of regulatory problems, for example in tax collection and averting deliveries to underage recipients. Siesta Village takes the opposite view, and granted summary judgment, which means the court decided Texas failed to show substantial likelihood that, if it were afforded a full hearing, it would present evidence on which a judgment in its favor could be based. To win in a direct discrimination case a state would have to show there is no reasonable alternative to discrimination for achieving legitimate regulatory objectives. The court reads Granholm to say that the availability of licensing and modern communications makes such an argument inherently implausible, and comes close to saying a state can never prevail on the proposition that interstate delivery is more likely to cause underage drinking than intrastate delivery.

4. Another point of controversy among lawyers is whether the Commerce Clause is indifferent to whether a court cures discrimination by leveling up or down. Siesta Village takes the side of those who argue that it makes no sense to level down in enforcing a constitutional provision intended to encourage interstate trade, at least in the absence of a clear legislative statement requiring termination of in-state privileges in case of invalidity of interstate prohibition. In constitutional law terms, the Siesta Village judge may have discovered a penumbra to the Commerce Clause that would prevent courts from taking such simplistic approaches as counting the number of lines of statutory text that would have to be rewritten and picking the smaller revision.

5. Although Siesta Village rejected the wholesalers’ strange argument that the discrimination arose not from Texas’s intent, but from the happenstance of the plaintiffs’ locations, it indulged in dicta indicating states can adopt on-site-only laws, in which case the “accident of geography,” and not state discrimination, would be responsible for excluding remote sellers. It appeared to accept the reasoning that because there is no “direct shipment market” in those states, the remote sellers are not excluded from anything by the prohibition, which is arguably a flawed argument under the Commerce Clause, whose policy extends to disproportionate burden as well as overt discrimination.

Appeals seem likely. Meanwhile, the parties in Knightsbridge Wine Shoppe, LTD v. Jolly, who agreed to extend Granholm, at least temporarily, to non-producing retailers selling to California consumers, will presumably take up their cudgels on application of the Siesta Village analysis, versus that of the New York case, Arnold’s Wines, Inc. v. Boyle on September 9, 2007. In Arnold’s Wines, the New York federal district court dismissed a retailer suit without an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the state had a 21st Amendment right to require all sales to go through an in-state wholesaler, a proposition suggested by the vexing dictum in the Granholm opinion.

The Arnold’s Wines decision seems to miss Granholm’s point that a state may have the right to require all wine to go through three tiers, but does not have the right to apply its rule with location discrimination unless it provides evidence that its discrimination against interstate sellers is required by a legitimate state objective that cannot be achieved through nondiscriminatory means. The Siesta Village judge expressly declined to follow Arnold’s Wines, which it plausibly characterized as putting the 21st Amendment above the Commerce Clause, precisely what Granholm forbids.

Share This

Hello and happy holidays from the ShipCompliant team! We’ve been a little quiet as we prepare to help all of our winery and retailer partners prepare for the big storm of reports that come due in January. Wineries that ship to all of the possible states for direct shipping can owe over 500 reports each year, depending on their filing frequencies with the state ABCs and Departments of Revenue. In January, all but one (for some reason, one of the New York reports is filed on a non-standard quarterly basis that starts on December 1st) of the reports come due. So, all other monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports come due in January.

Tasting room, wine club, accounting, and compliance managers all get very busy just after the first of the year preparing their data for the annual reporting rush. A key to making this endeavor a success is to collect and maintain good, clean data from all of your direct to consumer order sources, including eCommerce, wine club, tasting room, and administrative orders. Many of the reports require copies of invoices or schedules of shipments that list order details. Also, remember that the three states that have abbreviations that end in the letter I (HI, MI, and WI) also require dates of birth on their reports.

Here’s to a happy new year and a successful reporting rush!

Share This