Posts from the Wisconsin 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.”
Wisconsin County and Stadium Local Taxes
November 2nd, 2009
All businesses registered with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue received a notice (see below) that county and stadium taxes must be remitted beginning October 1st, 2009. Wineries shipping into Wisconsin are subject to this change. For all orders that were taken after October 1st and shipped to Wisconsin residents, wine shippers must remit the appropriate county and stadium taxes.
When filing the Wisconsin sales and use tax return, form ST-12, Schedule CT should be used to report these additional local taxes. The first sales and use tax return with local taxes is due for monthly filers in November for the month of October. For quarterly and annual filers, the first report with local taxes will come due on January 31st, 2010. Because this new rule became effective on October 1st, annual filers need only to pay the 5% state sales tax rate for the first nine months of the year, but should pay state tax and local tax for the final three months.
All Registered Retailers Must Collect Sales and Use Taxes for All Wisconsin Counties and Stadium Districts
Effective October 1, 2009, all retailers that are registered in Wisconsin to collect and remit the 5% Wisconsin state sales and use tax are also required to collect and remit the applicable county and stadium sales and use taxes for any sales that are sourced to a county or stadium district that has adopted the applicable county or stadium sales or use tax. This provision applies regardless of whether the retailer is “engaged in business” in the county or stadium district to which the sale is sourced.(Section 77.73 (3), Wis. Stats., as created by 2009 Wisconsin Act 2 and amended by 2009 Wisconsin Act 28)
Wisconsin Liquor Reporting: Reciprocal (9 months) + Electronic Filing (3 months)
November 21st, 2008
Effective October 1st, 2008, Wisconsin requires electronic filing for reporting shipments of wine into Wisconsin. According to Wisconsin, filing and paying taxes online is more accurate, more certain, and means better business. And, as we’ve discussed previously, it’s also green and convenient. Direct shippers must file their first excise tax report as a permitted Wine Direct Shipper electronically, and are required to file the “Wisconsin Distilled Spirits, Cider, and Wine Tax Return” (AB-130) and the “Wisconsin Winery and Direct Shipper Schedule” (AB-135). The first quarterly return includes shipments made from October 1st, 2008 through December 31st, 2008, and is due before January 15th, 2009. Also, wineries that ship to Wisconsin wholesalers must file the “Wisconsin Distilled Spirits, Cider, and Wine Tax Return” (AB-130) and the “Wisconsin Liquor Tax Multiple Schedule” (AB-131). Shipments to Wisconsin wholesalers must be filed monthly (also due by the 15th of the month), again, beginning October 1st, 2008.
There are two methods for filing the Wine Tax Return and all related schedules, electronically:
1) The Free-File filing application is available to anyone who has a Wisconsin Liquor Tax Permit Number, and you don’t have to set up a special account to start using it. Free-file will save all your data, so you can work on it as you ship orders, save it, and come back to it later. Entering the schedule information (e.g. the name of the recipient, how much wine they received) will automatically calculate the tax form. You can watch a detailed training video for more complete information on how to report using the Free File format. It’s about a half of an hour in length, and is very thorough. I had the best luck viewing the video in internet explorer. Payment options for Free-file include Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), or a payment voucher, which you can print out and then mail in with your payment to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. If you decide to pay your taxes via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), it takes about a week to process your registration, so don’t wait until the last minute. For more information about EFT payments, you can visit the Wisconsin EFT web page, or call (608) 264-9918.
2) The Liquor Tax File Transmission filing method is a quick and painless way to submit your tax return. You won’t have to hand-enter all of your data, which can save you a lot time. And just the same as Free-file, you don’t have to set up a special account, so you can begin using it immediately. This filing method does need some initial development, as it requires the creation of an XML file. If you are computer savvy, you can create this file yourself, or, if not, you could have someone that is computer savvy create it for you (ShipCompliant will provide this service to its clients, in case you were wondering). After you have saved the XML file to your computer, just upload the file using Wisconsin’s file transfer application, and wait for an immediate confirmation of receipt. The Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) payment option is available for this filing method.
Last but not least, for those direct shippers that shipped wine to Wisconsin consumers under the old reciprocity statutes (California wineries only), don’t forget that the “Annual Reciprocal Wine Shipment Report” must be filed for shipments made from January 1, 2008 through September 30th, 2008 (and don’t forget the required dates of birth for both purchaser and recipient). This form can be submitted in paper format. Because the “Annual Reciprocal Wine Shipment Report” only includes shipments through September, it can be submitted now, or anytime before January 31st, 2009.
Wisconsin Becomes a Limited State Today: I’ll Have Some Wine with that Cheese, Please
October 1st, 2008
Beginning today, October 1, 2008, Wisconsin is open to direct wine shipments from wineries throughout the country. Direct shipments to consumers in Wisconsin must be shipped under Wisconsin’s new “Direct Wine Shipper’s Permit”; reciprocal shipments of wines are no longer allowed. New direct shipping regulations include: a $200 Direct Shipping license, payment of sales and excise taxes, and quarterly reporting. Additionally, the consumer is limited to receiving no more than 108 liters (12 cases) of wine per year from any combination of licensees; the consumer is responsible for staying within the limit, however an individual direct shipper may not ship over 108 liters of wine to any individual in Wisconsin.
Also included in the legislative changes is the ability for wineries that produce less than 25,000 gallons of wine per year, to sell wine to retailers through a “co-operative wholesaler”. Co-operative wholesalers must be created before December 31st, 2008. To learn more about the legislative changes and co-operative wholesalers, read “Direct Shipping Bill Receives Governor’s Signature“. Also, “Permit Applications Available” contains more detailed information on these legislative updates, and information on how to become permitted as a Direct Wine Shipper in Wisconsin.
Two Upcoming Virtual Seminars; One for Wineries, One for Retailers
September 30th, 2008
ShipCompliant continues its series of ‘Virtual’ Seminars on Shipping Compliance, this year with two separate offerings for wineries and retailers. Click the links below for more information and to register.
The winery focused seminar presented along with Wine Institute, FedEx and Wine Business Monthly, will feature Steve Gross, Director of State Relations at Wine Institute, with a state-by-state legislative update. Special guest Tom Ourada, Tax Revenue Specialist with Wisconsin DOR, will provide insight on Wisconsin’s new direct shipping legislation. These informative presentations will be complemented by shipping compliance tools and workflows from ShipCompliant and FedEx.
The retailer focused seminar presented along with Specialty Wine Retailers Association (SWRA) and Wine Business Monthly, will feature Tom Wark, Executive Director of SWRA, with a state-by-state update from the retailer perspective along with best practices and a product demo from ShipCompliant.
Both events are run in a ‘virtual’ online format where you hear the speakers by calling into a conference phone line and see their presentations by logging into a coordinating web conference.
Don’t miss this opportunity to get time-critical updates without the cost of attending an event in person.
Wisconsin Permit Applications Available
September 11th, 2008
The Wine Direct Shipper permit application is now up on Wisconsin’s website. Wisconsin approved licensed direct shipping legislation back in March, which will allow wineries in every state to ship limited amounts of wine to Wisconsin residents, beginning October 1, 2008. Here’s some basic information on how to apply for the direct wine shipping permit:
Form BT-138, “Alcohol Beverages Tax Bond” (the bond amount should be equal to two times the estimated monthly tax due; minimum of $1000) and Form AB-123, “Distilled Spirits/Wine Permit Application” should be mailed to the WI DOR along with payment. Prospective direct wine shippers also must register to pay sales tax. The wine shipping permit application will not be processed until an Application for Business Tax Registration (aka “Seller’s Permit”) is completed. The fee for business tax registration is $20. If filing online (recommended – the application is processed much faster if done online), mail in the business tax registration fee with your $200 wine shipper permit fee and wine shipper permit application.
10 Days Left Until Illinois Permit Deadline
May 22nd, 2008
Just a friendly reminder that beginning June 1st, 2008, Illinois will require a permit for all direct-to-consumer wine shipments to the state. A winery must receive the permit before it may begin/resume shipment to the state. In 10 days, under the newly-promulgated wine shipping law, wineries and retailers that have been shipping to Illinois under a reciprocal agreement will no longer be able to ship to the state without a permit. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission has not given any indication of a grace period for shipping while applications are in process.
For expedient processing, an applicant should submit a copy of its state liquor license along with the Out-of-State Winery Shipper’s License application. An applicant must also submit the brand registration form (for brands not already registered with the state) prior to, or simultaneously to the submission of the application. In addition, a winery must register for sales and excise tax. An accelerated tax permit approval process is available for those wineries which have a distributor in state. In any event, and with time running out, electronic submissions will be approved faster than those send via conventional mail. See our previous post for more detailed instructions and a checklist for the application process with links to forms.
Also, as a reminder, Georgia will open up on July 1st, and Wisconsin will begin their new permit system on October 1st. We’ll have the full details of the application process in both states as they become available.
Wisconsin Direct Shipping Bill Receives Governor’s Signature
March 14th, 2008
Senate Bill 485 was passed into law yesterday, making Wisconsin the newest addition to the list of permit states. Wisconsin was one of the three remaining states that had yet to change their direct shipping laws since the Granholm ruling. Direct shipping law did not authorize intra-state shipments of wine to consumers, and the reciprocity agreement defined by Wisconsin only allowed California wineries to ship directly to the state’s residents. Now, a winery in any state may ship wine directly to a Wisconsin resident once the winery has received a direct wine shipper permit from Wisconsin.
The new direct wine shippers permit allows licensees (licensed wineries that are located in- and/or out-of-state) to ship wine directly to an of-age and non-intoxicated individual in Wisconsin. The individual may receive no more than 108 liters of wine annually from any combination of licensees. The individual is responsible for compliance with this annual limit. The fee for this permit is no more than $100/year. Sales tax, excise tax and reporting are required quarterly.
This is good news for direct to consumer sales – no capacity caps, no touchy age-validation restrictions… but there’s a catch concerning self-distribution: all sales to retailers must go through a wholesaler.
Legislative Intent… Without the 3-tier system, the effective statewide regulation and collection of state taxes on alcohol beverages sales would be seriously jeopardized. It is further the intent of the legislature that without a specific statutory exception, all sales of alcohol beverages shall occur through the 3-tier system, from manufacturers to licensed wholesalers to retailers to consumers. Face-to-face retail sales at licensed premises directly advance the state’s interest in preventing alcohol sales to underage or intoxicated persons and the state’s interest in efficient and effective collection of tax.
Luckily, there are a couple safeguards for small manufacturers.
“All wholesalers must work diligently to ensure that distribution channels are available for the sale of intoxicating liquor products through wholesalers to retailers in this state.”
The legislation isn’t clear about methods or consequences for wholesalers if they fail to adhere to this clause.
The other safeguard: small wineries (producing under 25,000 gallons of wine in a year) may group together to form a “Cooperative Wholesaler”; this Cooperative must become licensed to act as a regularly-licensed-wholesaler in order to sell to retailers or other regularly-licensed-wholesalers. The maximum number of Cooperatives allowed is six, and they must be created between October 1, 2008 and December 31st, 2008. The Cooperative must have a single location within the state of Wisconsin (a winery can only belong to one Cooperative). If the Cooperative’s members consist of both in- and out-of-state wineries, then the board of directors must also include both in- and out-of-state members. Members may not be employees of the Cooperative, but may volunteer.
The bill passed through the Senate and the House in late February and was approved by Governor Doyle on March 13th. Last year, a similar bill was passed by the House and Senate, but was vetoed by Governor Doyle partly because the bill would have banned self-distribution altogether, and did not “adequately address the needs of small entrepreneurial wineries.” This year’s bill seems to address the aforementioned needs and received backing by the Wisconsin Wine and Spirit Institute. The new law goes into effect on October 1, 2008.
Reporting Madness
December 26th, 2007
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!
Doyle uses veto on Wisconsin budget bill
October 26th, 2007
There was a flurry of activity this week in Wisconsin related to DTC shipping and self-distribution. You will recall that last month a host of onerous shipping provisions were included in the House version of the budget. These proposals would have repealed the existing reciprocal shipping statutes, replacing them with an entirely unworkable and exorbitantly expensive permit system. Just this week, we were able to amend the language related to DTC shipping in the final budget package to an acceptable package that would have allowed for a reasonable permit fee, as well as a 12-case per consumer limit (up from the 3 case original proposal). Unfortunately, the local wine industry was unable to secure a fix to the language banning self-distribution, which remained in the final budget. Early this morning, Governor Jim Doyle vetoed the entire section dealing with alcohol statutes, saying
“While the changes to the distribution system included in these sections may help address some concerns with sales of alcohol to minors, they also may have stifling economic effects on the small wineries around the state, forcing them out of business…While I am vetoing these provisions, I support the concept of a three-tier distribution system. The language included in the bill, however, does not adequately address the needs of small entrepreneurial wineries…”
Wine Shipping Permit System Passes via Badger Budget Bill
October 25th, 2007
Governor Jim Doyle is expected to sign into law Senate Bill 40, the Wisconsin Budget Bill that passed both chambers of the state congress on Tuesday. Within an amendment to the budget bill are provisions that would strike the existing reciprocal statutes for direct shipping and insert language that creates a permit system for wineries from any state. If signed by Governor Doyle (which could happen “within days“), the budget bill would take effect seven days later.
As of today, Wisconsin is one of only three states, including Iowa and New Mexico, that have reciprocity requirements for wine shipping. Oregon and Illinois also recently passed legislation that removes reciprocity and creates permit systems that will take effect on January 1st and June 1st, respectively. Wisconsin currently only has an official reciprocity arrangement with the state of California. Because of this, wineries in other states technically can not ship into Wisconsin.
The new law would establish an annual volume limit:
No individual in this state may receive more than 108 liters of wine annually shipped under authority of the section. Each individual shall be responsible for compliance with this annual limit.
and a tiered permit system:
(a) For a permittee that ships more than 90 liters of wine annually to individuals in this state, $100.
(b) For a permittee that ships not less than 27 liters nor more than 90 liters of wine annually to individuals in this state, $50.
(c) For a permittee that ships less than 27 liters of wine annually to individuals in this state, $10.
See our previous post for background on this bill. Key changes from the original version passed by the Senate make this bill much less onerous.
Helpful Clarification Regarding Ohio’s New Shipping Statute Allows Some Wineries to Start Shipping
September 27th, 2007
Wine Institute has received an initial clarification from the Ohio Division of Liquor Control that should allow some wineries to begin shipments to Ohio consumers. In addition to the restriction on the size of wineries (under 150,000 gallons) that can apply for a permit, there had been confusion surrounding the “family household” limit of 24 cases annually from an aggregate of winery sources. According to the advice that was given to our staff by the ODLC any penalty for a violation of the case limit provisions will fall solely to the consumers who order the wine, so long as no individual winery were to ship more than the legal amount to a given address. That being the case, those qualifying wineries that obtain a permit to ship should be able to initiate shipments of up to 24 cases of wine annually to any one Ohio address. It is likely that additional regulations and clarifications will be forthcoming, and we will keep members posted as they do. In the meantime, however, at least some wineries should be able to begin making shipments after receiving their permits. Permit applications are available at http://www.liquorcontrol.ohio.gov/1614pdf.pdf and a document outlining the program has just been posted at http://www.liquorcontrol.ohio.gov/DirectShipping.htm . Please contact WI State Relations at (415) 356-7530 if you have further questions.
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.
Free the Grapes! Fate of Wine Direct Shipping in Wisconsin Rests with Conference Committee, Governor
July 26th, 2007
From the Free the Grapes! press release:
For 20 years, Wisconsin’s wine lovers have been able to purchase wine directly from wineries licensed to do so, as well as from in-state wine retailers. But consumers will lose these privileges if the Budget Bill passes as it is currently written, according to Free the Grapes!, the national consumer grassroots coalition (http://www.freethegrapes.org/).
“These anti-consumer provisions were slipped into the Senate version of the 384-page, $66 billion, two-year Budget Bill, rather than being considered in the light of day,” said Jeremy Benson, executive director, Free the Grapes! The association is encouraging consumers to visit its website at http://www.freethegrapes.org/ and use the website to send personalized letters to state legislators and Governor Doyle. The organization points out three provisions that will effectively cut-off consumers from their favorite wines and wineries, and punish Wisconsin’s emerging wine industry:
** A Low-Tech Throwback to Paper Signatures: Each of the growing number of states (34) that allow legal, regulated direct-to-consumer shipments, including Wisconsin, allow electronic signature at the point of delivery by freight companies like FedEx and UPS. The Budget Bill’s language would require freight companies to gather paper signatures of the recipient and report these paper documents to the State, a process they probably cannot comply with. Additionally, the language requires that drivers collect a written “attestation” that the recipient was not intoxicated at the time of delivery.
** Cumbersome Shipping Limits: While shipping limits are standard in other states, Wisconsin’s current Budget Bill will limit shipments per individual rather than per winery, the standard in most other states. Because wineries cannot be sure how much wine an individual has purchased directly from others, wineries will not risk the penalties of non-compliance. Only Indiana and Massachusetts have included a per consumer aggregate purchase limit in their existing statutes; these two states are considered “prohibited” by wineries and FedEx. The proposed language also reduces consumer benefits of legal direct shipping by lowering the case limit from three cases per winery per consumer, to three cases per consumer (from all wineries).
** Regressive Licensing Fees. The Budget Bill is proposing the most regressive and onerous winery licensing fees of any state. For many wineries, the license fee will exceed the profit on wines shipped and wineries will be forced to cut-off consumers from their wine club programs
The next step for the budget bill is in the conference committee to reconcile differences in the budget between the Senate and Assembly versions.
Proposed Wisconsin Budget Could Affect Direct Shipping and Self Distribution
July 9th, 2007
The Wisconsin Senate amended and passed the proposed 2007-09 biennial budget bill to include a Direct Shipper’s Permit for wineries. As is, the amendment removes Wisconsin’s reciprocal language and allows permitted wineries to ship up to 27 liters per year directly to individual consumers. However, the bill would also restrict the amount of wine consumers can purchase directly from all wineries across the country to 27 liters per year.
If Passed, the amendment would also create a fee structure for the Direct Shipper’s Permit. For wineries that ship more than 90 liters annually into Wisconsin, the fee would be $1,000.00. Wineries shipping between 27 and 90 liters per year would pay a fee of $500.00, and wineries that ship less than 27 liters of wine annually to Wisconsin would pay a fee $100.00.
Furthermore, wineries wishing to ship directly to Wisconsin consumers would be required to obtain a tax registration certificate, report all wines shipped, their prices, along with the name, address, and age of the person to whom they were shipped annually.
Finally, the amendment would remove a winery’s ability to sell directly to retailers. Under the proposed law, wineries would be forced to sell their wines through a licensed wholesaler. Reportedly, wine distributors in Wisconsin claim the amendment was necessary to comply with Granholm. However, the amendment has received strong criticism from Wisconsin vintners who fear that the loss of self distribution privileges would cause significant losses in revenue.
The budget proposal will be considered next by the Wisconsin House of Representatives. As always, the ShipCompliant Research Team is closely monitoring the progress of Wisconsin’s Budget Bill and will report as updates occur.
Direct shipping bill passes West Virginia Congress
March 14th, 2007
In May of 2005, in the case of Granholm v. Heald, the United States Supreme Court effectively invalidated the practice of reciprocity because it discriminates against wineries in non-reciprocal states. At that time, there were 13 reciprocity states. Today, there are only seven reciprocity states left (Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, and West Virginia), and at the end of 2007 there may be only two as Oregon, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, and West Virginia have legislation pending that would move their states into the “limited direct”, or permit state category.
West Virginia may be the first reciprocal state to change in 2007. Senate Bill 712 recently passed the West Virginia Congress and is expected to be signed by the Governor. This bill would create a permit system where in-state and out-of-state wineries can apply for and receive a license to ship up to two cases of wine per month directly to adult residents. Permitted wineries would be responsible for reporting monthly excise tax (beginning July 1, 2007), sales tax, and a schedule of shipments made in the previous month. The permit would cost “One hundred fifty dollars per year for a direct shipper’s license for a licensee who sells and ships only wine and two hundred fifty dollars for a direct shipper’s license who ships and sells wine, nonfortified dessert wine, port, sherry or Madeira wines” plus a brand registration fee of $100 per brand for three years. Common carriers shipping into WV would be required to collect an adult signature upon delivery of wine packages.
One thing to note about this bill is that it would level-down on self-distribution, meaning that in-state wineries would lose their privilege to ship wine directly to retailers. There are also some requirements that are a bit gray as they are written, but will hopefully be sorted out and clarified after the bill is signed by the Governor and the rules are promulgated by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner.
