Posts from the Wine Institute Category
Controlled Shipping: HB 1352 Will Make Some Changes to New Hampshire’s Direct Shipping Laws
September 1st, 2010
HB 1352, a bill that includes changes to volume limits, permit fees, reporting requirements, and common carrier requirements, was signed by Governor John Lynch on July 15, 2010. Direct shipping is already available for wineries and retailers in New Hampshire, but the changes that will take effect on January 1, 2011 will have an impact on wineries, retailers and also on common carriers.
Consumer volume limits will increase from the current 60 individual “containers” (none of which can exceed 1 Liter in size) per household per year, to 12 nine-Liter cases per consumer per year. Additionally, the Commission may provide allowances for more wine to be shipped to an individual consumer if the product is not otherwise available within the state. Direct shipping permits, previously free for both wineries and retailers, will now cost $100 for wineries and $500 for retailers, annually. Monthly “markup” (8 percent of the retail price for shipments of liquor, wine, beer, or beverage) tax reports will need only be filed if there are shipments to report, whereas previously, monthly reports were due even if shipments were not made.
Also included in the bill is a clarification on the volume shipped before a product must be offered for sale to the state; if a licensee ships more than 600 Liters (previously set to 1,200 individual containers) of any particular liquor or wine, the licensee must offer to sell a matching amount to the state at the lowest price delivered into New Hampshire, if they want to ship more than the 600 Liter limit.
Effective January 1, 2011, common carriers (FedEX, UPS, etc.) will be required to cease shipments from wine shippers that do not hold valid shipping permits in the state of New Hampshire. An “unauthorized shipper” list will be provided by the Commission to the carriers on a monthly basis. This is a unique requirement for the common carriers to be responsible for maintaining a “do not ship from” list, blocking shipments into New Hampshire from unauthorized shippers.
Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010 Introduced
April 16th, 2010
As expected, the Congressional subcommittee hearing on Legal Issues Concerning State Alcohol Regulation has been followed by a House bill. H.R. 5034 was introduced yesterday by Representative Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) with support from the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA). The bill is also called the "CARE" (Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness) Act of 2010, and Wine & Spirits Daily posted a copy of it on their site.
It is the purpose of this Act to—
(1) recognize that alcohol is different from other consumer products and that it should be regulated effectively by the States according to the laws
thereof; and
(2) reaffirm and protect the primary authority of States to regulate alcoholic beverages.
The bill would amend both the Webb-Kenyon Act and the Wilson Act to “support State based alcohol regulation, to clarify evidentiary
rules for alcohol matters, to ensure the collection of all alcohol taxes, and for other purposes.”
The Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) applauded the legislation, saying
It is important that states retain their constitutional power to regulate the distribution of beverage alcohol and are able to fend off litigation, which serves to destabilize or destroy that authority. Although we may oppose direct shipping and self-distribution as a matter of policy, our goal is not to overturn existing state laws. We simply believe the proper forum for resolving legitimate differences over these issues is in the state legislatures – not the courts.
We will have more coverage of this bill as the story develops.
Read more:
Wine & Spirits Daily (subscription required)
Massachusetts will not appeal Family Winemakers decision
April 13th, 2010
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley will not appeal a January Federal Appeals Court decision upholding an earlier District Court decision which overturned the 2005 direct shipping law. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2008 district court ruling that found that the state law governing direct-to-consumer shipments by wineries was unconstitutional.
The court said the law has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce because it favors instate interests by preventing direct shipments of nearly all out-of-state wine to Massachusetts consumers while allowing direct deliveries by all Massachusetts wineries.
The flawed shipment law provided that only wineries that produce less than 30,000 gallons a year and had not used a wholesaler for distribution in the last six months could ship directly to local consumers. The wholesaler backed law was enacted in 2005 and vetoed by then Governor Mitt Romney. It was enacted over his objection in 2006.
The Massachusetts Legislature is now considering legislation that will mimic the model direct shipping law which will establish a new regulatory framework for shipments by all wineries, large and small, including licensing, reporting and tracking requirements.
The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure in February reported favorably on legislation submitted by Senator Robert O’Leary (S 176) and Representative David Torrisi (H 317), two long time supporters of the model legislation. These two bills were combined into a single committee bill, H 4497. H 4497,”An Act regulating the direct shipment of wine”, has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. It provides for a $100 per winery licensing fee, requires monthly reporting and tax collections, limits shipments to four cases per consumer per year per winery and establishes stiff penalties for noncompliance. The bill also attempts to address a cost-prohibitive issue that has kept common carriers such as FedEx and UPS out of the delivery market.
Wine Institute is currently working with the House Ways and Means Committee to improve the bill by addressing the common carrier issue and the four case limit. Once the bill clears this House committee, it will likely be approved by the full House.
-Carol Martel, Counsel for the Northeastern States, Wine Institute
New Hampshire Updates Monthly Reporting Form
April 9th, 2010
The New Hampshire Liquor Commission has just established a new fax line dedicated to direct shipping. Direct Shippers should fax their monthly report to the new fax number 603-271-8424 on or before the 10th of the following month. Direct Shipping Reports must be filed each month regardless of activity. Wineries with no shipments to report are encouraged to email their reports as attachments to directshippers@liquor.state.nh.us instead sending via fax. The Direct Shipping Monthly Report form has been updated with the new fax number and is posted on the Wine Institute website. Should you have any questions please contact Annie Bones, Wine Institute’s State Relations Coordinator, at 415-356-7530 or abones@wineinstitute.org.
by Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Virginia Passes Fix-It Bill for Third Party Shippers
April 1st, 2010
Wine Institute Eastern Counsel Terri Beirne has been working since July 2009 with the Virginia ABC Board, and representatives of Wine America and the Virginia wineries to resolve problems created by Virginia ABC Circular Letter 09-05. That Circular prohibited Virginia direct wine shippers from using any third-party service providers, namely fulfillment or pick and pack warehouses. To resolve this problem, Wine Institute drafted legislation and identified sponsors in the 2010 General Assembly to permit a third party, under the direction and control of a Virginia wine shipper license, to solicit and receive orders for wine, and to pack and ship wine.
Like sausage, the bill that started in Virginia was quite different from what passed. Most importantly, the new law allows wine shipments into Virginia from out-of-state shipper licensee through an “approved fulfillment warehouse.” The ABC is charged with developing regulations governing such approval. They will require the fulfillment warehouse to: 1) show ABC its home state license; 2) to maintain/give records that the ABC will describe; and (3) demonstrate it has a contract with a wine shipper licensee designating that fulfillment warehouse as its agent. Wine Institute will actively participate in the creation of these regulations, but it is unlikely they will be finalized before July of 2011.
The new law also creates a Virginia fulfillment warehouse license, as well as a Virginia “marketing portal” license. These two new licenses are available only to agricultural cooperatives (non-profit associations recognized by the Virginia Agricultural Cooperative Act of 5 or more growers within Virginia) operating under the direction and control of a Virginia wine shipper licensee. On behalf of wine shipper licensees, the fulfillment and marketing portal licensees can pack and ship wine for wineries/retailers, or solicit and receive orders for wine through an Internet site.
Virginia continues to permit wineries licensed as Virginia direct wine shippers to offer their wines to Virginians via their web sites. It also continues to allow retailers licensed as Virginia direct shippers to market their own inventory on a web site. However, the new law prohibits any marketing on web sites of wine not owned/possessed by the web site owner, unless done by a Virginia agricultural cooperative licensed as a marketing portal.
Unfortunately, the new law (resulting from HB 279, HB 630, SB 483 and SB 590) also raises the annual license tax for Virginia wine shipper licensees from $65 to $95. It will take effect on July 1, 2010, at which time Virginia ABC will begin to draft the regulations.
-Terri Cofer Beirne, Eastern Counsel, Wine Institute
Iowa Governor Signs Direct Shipping Legislation
March 17th, 2010
On March 10, 2010, Governor Culver signed Senate Bill 2088 which includes provisions to transition Iowa from a reciprocal shipping state to a permit state and allow unlimited direct-to-consumer shipments. The legislation will become effective on July 1, 2010, and brings Iowa into compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2005 Granholm v. Heald ruling by allowing all in-state and out-of-state wineries to ship to consumers in Iowa. Beginning July 1, 2010, wineries will be required to have a permit in order to ship to Iowa consumers. The permit fee is $25 and must be renewed annually. In addition, direct shippers will be required to obtain a bond, file monthly reports and pay excise taxes. The direct shipping permit application will be posted on the Wine Institute website as soon as it becomes available, along with any updates on the application process.
Direct Shipping Licensing Updates
March 4th, 2010
Michigan
Direct shipping permits for Michigan are renewable on May 1. The annual renewal cost for the Michigan Permit is $100; the same as the initial permit fee. For those wineries that do not have a direct shipping permit for MI now is good time to consider applying. Licenses are valid from May 1 – April 30 and the $100 fee is not prorated. The permit allows wineries to ship up to 1,500 9-liter cases to Michigan consumers. Brand registration is required. This can be completed through the MLCC’s online label registration program for no fee. Sales tax and excise tax must be paid and reports must be filed.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire has updated its direct shipping permit application. The updated application is now available on Wine Institute’s website along with the instructions. Please be sure to complete the application in its entirety and attach all required documents. Incomplete applications will be returned. Applicants will be happy to note that there is no permit fee. Approved shippers are allowed to ship up to 60 containers of not more than 1 liter each to each consumer during a calendar year. Monthly reports and tax payments are required.
Tennessee
The Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission has updated their ”Direct Shipper Application Requirements – ABC” document posted on the TN ABC and Wine Institute websites. The original version of the document did not include the “Wholesale Gallonage Letter” requirement. The Wholesale Gallonage letter is one of 2 documents issued by the TN Department of Revenue that wineries must submit with their application. The second document is the “Certificate of Registration for Sales and Use Tax.” While the application on the TN Department of Revenue website says a bond is required, a bond is not required for wineries. For the TN DOR wholesale gallonage and sales and use tax application form, go to: http://www.state.tn.us/revenue/forms/general/f13005_1.pdf. Licenses are valid 1 year from the date issued and the annual license fee is $150.00. There is also a 1 time non-refundable application fee of $300. Additional information about the application process is available on the Wine Institute website. Wineries may also contact Sharon Loveall at the TN Alcoholic Beverage Commission with any questions about winery direct shipping permits at 615.741.1602, ext. 141
By Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
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.
Siesta’s Over
January 27th, 2010
On January 26th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended the puzzling status of interstate retailing in Texas created by the lower court’s decision in Siesta Village Market. The district court had ruled that out-of-state retailers had a Commerce Clause right to sell wine to Texas consumers, but only wine that had been purchased from a Texas-licensed wholesaler.
The decision is another example of uncertainties resulting from the principal unresolved Granholm question: How does one reconcile the location-neutrality principle with the infamous North Dakota dictum to the effect that states may discriminate against out-of-state wholesalers? The Fifth Circuit’s answer, like that of the Second Circuit, is that Granholm extended Commerce Clause protection to wineries, but not to wholesalers or retailers, because national markets in the lower tiers would make it impossible for a state to protect the “traditional three-tier system.” As the Court of Appeals judge said about setting aside fundamental economic policy embodied in the dormant Commerce Clause to follow a judicial aside that was not part of the Granholm holding, “That language may be dicta. If so, it is compelling dicta.”
Post-Granholm litigation shows clearly enough that judges, though not bound to follow dicta, will elevate it to persuasive precedent when it coincides with their value systems. The values question is whether states’ asserted 21st Amendment right to maintain a privileged middle tier trumps the Commerce Clause policy against differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. All one can say at this point is, “to be continued.”
by R. Corbin Houchins, CorbinCounsel.com
Huge win for wineries, but can I ship to Massachusetts now?
January 17th, 2010
First Circuit affirms District Court decision
On Thursday, January 14th, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court in the case of Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins. The appellatte decision represents a major victory for wineries and may be the end of the case that was originally filed by Family Winemakers of California in September of 2006.
"We’re delighted with the decision on behalf of our members and all wineries across the U.S. We’re also glad that this court put its foot down about discriminatory laws, like production caps, not being able to withstand judicial scrutiny. Now it’s time to change Massachusetts law so that all wineries, not only in California but across the nation that produce more than 30,000 gallons will have an opportunity to fulfill the wine choices of Bay State residents," said Paul Kronenberg, President of Family Winemakers of California.
98% of domestic wine excluded
Massachusetts law allowed “small” wineries that produced less than 30,000 gallons per year to simultaneously ship wines directly to consumers with a “small winery shipping license” and to have their wines sold in traditional distribution through wholesalers. “Large” wineries (wineries that produce more than 30,000 gallons per year) did not have the same choices. They could either completely opt out of the three-tier system and ship wines to Massachusetts consumers with a “large winery shipping license”, or forego direct shipping to have their wines sold at wine retailers, restaurants and bars via traditional distribution.
According to the decision, the 637 wineries that qualified as “large” accounted for 98% of all wine produced in the United States in 2006. Of those 637, the top 30 producers accounted for 92% of the national market. The remaining 2% of U.S. wine production came from 4,713 “small” wineries, and 1,780 of those produced less than one gallon. In 2007, 100% of the 31 Massachusetts wineries produced less than 30,000 gallons per year.
Discrimination against interstate commerce
In November, 2008, the District Court ruled in that Massachusetts law had a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. On Thursday, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The decision states in relevant part:
The primary question before us is whether § 19F unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce in light of both the Commerce Clause, Footnote art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.
It is clear that § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not protect state alcohol laws that explicitly favor in-state over out-of-state interests from invalidation under the Commerce Clause. Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 489 (2005). But § 19F is neutral on its face; it does not, by its terms, allow only Massachusetts wineries to distribute their wines through a combination of direct shipping, wholesaler distribution, and retail sales. Section 19F instead uses a very particular gallonage cap to confer this benefit upon "small" as opposed to "large" wineries.
We hold that § 19F violates the Commerce Clause because the effect of its particular gallonage cap is to change the competitive balance between in-state and out-of-state wineries in a way that benefits Massachusetts’s wineries and significantly burdens out-of-state competitors. Massachusetts has used its 30,000 gallon grape wine cap to expand the distribution options available to "small" wineries, including all Massachusetts wineries, but not to similarly situated "large" wineries, all of which are outside Massachusetts. The advantages afforded to "small" wineries by these expanded distribution options bear little relation to the market challenges caused by the relative sizes of the wineries. Section 19F’s statutory context, legislative history, and other factors also yield the unavoidable conclusion that this discrimination was purposeful. Nor does § 19F serve any legitimate local purpose that cannot be furthered by a non-discriminatory alternative.
We further hold that the Twenty-first Amendment cannot save § 19F from invalidation under the Commerce Clause. Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not exempt or otherwise immunize facially neutral but discriminatory state alcohol laws like § 19F from scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. We affirm the grant of injunctive relief.
New legislation needed
As we posted about almost three years ago, the capacity cap was not the only troubling issue with the Massachusetts wine law. The consumer aggregate volume limit provision and, more importantly, the requirement that carriers obtain a permit for each of their delivery trucks have been in some ways just as problematic for wine consumers. After DHL pulled out of the business of delivering wine, FedEx and UPS are by far and away the major two carriers for interstate delivery.
Both FedEx and UPS have chosen to avoid interstate wine shipments to Massachusetts because of the delivery vehicle permit system. This will likely not change following this decision. Technically, Massachusetts is now open to any domestic winery that holds the appropriate permit, regardless of its use of middle-tier distribution. But, without FedEx and UPS, Bay State consumers will still be out of luck for now. New legislation that eliminates the consumer aggregate volume limit and changes the delivery vehicle requirements will likely be necessary to truly open the state for Massachusetts consumers. This decision may just provide the momentum to pass a new wine shipping bill.
We’ll post further analysis from R. Corbin Houchins in the coming days, so please stay tuned. Also, for more background, see our previous posts:
Massachusetts Still Question Mark for 30K-Gallon Wineries
A Battle Well-Picked and Well-Fought
Family Winemakers Court Win is Big for the Industry
Family Winemakers of California Making Headway in Massachusetts
Why Can’t I Have a Boston Wine Party?
“New Vintage” of Wine Litigation
A response to the Family Winemakers lawsuit
Family Winemakers sues Massachusetts over capacity cap
MA Congress overrides Romney veto, court challenge likely
Massachusetts Governor vetoes wine bill
Virginia ABC Offers Interim Solutions for Wineries Shipping Through Third Party Service Providers
December 4th, 2009
On November 19, Terri Beirne, Wine Institute’s Eastern Counsel, met with the Virginia ABC Board, their Director, and representatives of Wine America and the Virginia wineries to continue discussions about the July Circular Letter 09-05 prohibiting direct shippers from using any third party service providers. Despite earlier indications, the Board has no plans to issue additional circulars on this issue. They suggested that a statutory change is essential to reinstate use of pick and pack/fulfillment warehouse and other third party service providers by Virginia licensees. They also offered to work with industry to craft legislation for the 2010 Virginia General Assembly Session which starts on 1/13/10 and concludes on 3/13/10.
However, the VA ABC offered two interim solutions for Wine Institute members until the law can be changed. Nothing in Virginia law currently prevents direct shipper licensees from obtaining two (2) direct shipper licenses with two different addresses, even though a second location is not owned or controlled by the licensee. Therefore, if a winery sends wine from BOTH their tasting room and a fulfillment warehouse, it can keep a current direct shipper license intact and secure a second one with the address of their fulfillment facility, from where wine can also be shipped. The Virginia direct shipper license application fee is $65 and the annual license fee is $65. Separate tax payments and reports associated with each licenses would have to be filed.
Additionally, if the winery sends ALL wine shipments into Virginia from a pick and pack warehouse with NO shipments originating in their tasting room, the winery’s Virginia direct shippers license could be changed to list the address of the warehouse from which ALL wine will be shipped. Wineries may make such an amendment to a current license by sending a letter on winery letterhead explaining the reason for the change and including the old and new addresses to Dallas “Burnie” Gaskill, VA ABC Licensing Technician at P.O. Box 1597, Spotsylvania, VA 22553-1597. Burnie can be reached by phone at (540) 538-7838 or e-mail at dallas.gaskill@abc.virginia.gov with questions. Such letter MUST include a copy of the state license issued to the warehouse making shipments on the winery’s behalf. The letter must also contain an e-mail address for the winery, where the amended license will be sent in an electronic format.
Members can contact Annie Bones at abones@wineinstitute.org or at (415) 356-7530 with additional questions. Terri would also be pleased to talk more about this situation and can be reached at (804) 301-5505 or tbeirne@wineinstitute.org.
-Terri Cofer Beirne, Eastern Counsel, Wine Institute
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)
Maine Direct Shipping Permit Applications Available
October 12th, 2009
The direct shipping applications for Maine are now available on the Wine Institute website. The direct shipping permit allows wineries to ship up to 12 nine liter cases of wine to a recipient’s address each year. The Department of Public Safety, Liquor Licensing and Inspection Division has confirmed that there are no prohibited shipping areas at this time. The annual permit fee is $200 plus an additional $100 filing fee. Applicants will have to register with Maine Revenue Services to pay sales and use taxes before submitting their permit application. Maine Revenue Services will send applicants a Retailer’s Certificate to confirm that their sales tax account has been established. There is no fee to register with Revenue Services and the tax registration forms can be sent in via U.S. mail or electronically. The processing time for electronically filed applications is significantly shorter. Only sections 1 and 5 of the tax registration form must be completed.
Once wineries have received their Retailer’s Certificate they can submit their completed direct shipper application to the Liquor Licensing and Inspections Unit, along with a copy of their federal basic permit and application fee. The direct shipper application must also be notarized. Once wineries receive their direct shipping permit they will be responsible for paying excise tax to the Department of Public Safety and sales tax to Revenue Services. In addition, a direct shipping report must be filed twice a year. Reporting forms will be posted on the Wine Institute website once they become available. Should you have any questions please contact Annie Bones in Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at abones@wineinstitute.org.
Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Montana: No Federal Onsite Shipments, Please
October 6th, 2009
The Montana Dept. of Revenue, Liquor Control Division recently confirmed that consumers in Montana are prohibited from receiving direct wine shipments under the Federal Onsite provision (sec. 11022 of Public Law 107-273). Montana law only allows consumers with a connoisseur’s license to receive direct wine shipments. However, the common carriers, FedEx and UPS, have NOT approved Montana for shipment of direct-to-consumer sales, because Montana law requires a consumer to obtain a license to receive such direct shipments.
Washington State Approval No Longer Required for Wine Labels
September 17th, 2009
In an action supported by Washington Wine Institute, the Washington State Liquor Control Board adopted a new policy on wine label approval. Effective August 19, 2009, the WSLCB will accept the federal Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) as label approval for beer and wine to be sold in the state of Washington. Producers will no longer be required to apply for state label approval, but as WSLCB confirmed today, wineries will still need to file their COLA’s with the Board. Alcohol and keg products that do not require Federal label approval are also approved to sell immediately.
- Jean M. Leonard, Esq. – Executive Director, Washington Wine Institute
Maine Direct Shipping Applications Update
August 25th, 2009
The Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement has indicated that direct shipping license applications will be available on September 12, 2009, the same day the direct shipping law becomes effective. Wineries should contact Lori Nolette, the contact for liquor licensing and compliance at the Bureau, for a copy of the application once it becomes available. The direct shipping licensees will be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine to each consumer each year. The initial license fee is $200 with an annual renewal of $50. Wineries must have a license in order to ship on-site and off-site transactions to Maine consumers beginning September 12, 2009. Wine Institute will post any updates about the direct shipper license application on the Wine Institute website as soon as it becomes available.
-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Tennessee Direct Shipper Applications and Instructions Available
August 24th, 2009
Wineries are now able to apply to the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission for a Direct Shipper license. Direct Shipper licensees may ship no more than 1 case (9 liters) of wine to a Tennessee consumer during a calendar month and total shipments to each consumer may not exceed 3 cases (27 liters) of wine during a calendar year. Only Tennessee consumers located in a wet region are allowed to receive wine shipments, and common carriers will not deliver shipments to an address that is located in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages. A complete list of jurisdictions that have approved sales of alcohol is available on the Wine Institute website.
The first step in the direct shipper application process is registering to pay taxes, by submitting an “Application for Registration” to the Department of Revenue. The “Application for Registration” form must be completed by hand (Do Not file online version of the application.) Direct Shippers should select “Wholesale Gallonage” and “Sales and Use Tax” in section 1 and describe their business activity as “direct shipping” in section 15. Direct Shipper’s are not required to post a bond.
Once the Department of Revenue has processed the application for registration the direct shipper applicant should receive two documents: a “Certificate of Registration” and a letter confirming the tax registration process has been completed. Do not submit the Direct Shipper License application to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission before receiving these documents. The confirmation letter issued by the Department of Revenue must be submitted with the Direct Shipper License application. Direct shipper license applicants must pay a one time non-refundable fee of $300.00 and an annual license fee of $150 to the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission before receiving their license. Payment totaling $450.00 should be included with the application packet. In addition, the following documents should be submitted with the direct shipper’s license: copies of contracts with common carriers shipping wine to Tennessee consumers (also known as “Alcohol Shipping Agreement”), a copy of the applicant’s organizational document, and a copy of the applicant’s federal basic permit.
The direct shipper’s license is valid for 1 year from the date of issue. Direct shipper’s must file reports, pay a state sales tax of 9.25% and pay excise tax. The Department of Revenue will send the appropriate reporting forms and instructions to licensees based on their filing status. The application forms and instructions are available on the Wine Institute website. Wineries should remember that shipping to consumers in Tennessee without a license is classified as a felony. Should you have any questions please contact Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at 415-356-7530 or abones@wineinstitute.org.
-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Texas to Roll Out New Volume Limits
August 17th, 2009
New rules in Texas should benefit Lone Star consumers, and also make life a little easier for wineries. On June 19th, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law HB 1084, which will take effect on September 1st, 2009. Under the new rules, three different volume limits replace the existing set of two limits for licensed shippers.
Currently, licensees may ship up to three gallons of wine within “any 30-day period”. This rule was perhaps the most difficult, and most commonly violated rule in a compliance check out of all state limitations. First, three gallons translates to just over 15 standard 750 mL bottles, whereas most states stick to a standard case or two-case limit. More importantly, the “rolling” 30-day period was very problematic to track for wineries that did not use an automated compliance solution. The majority of state volume limits are tracked on a calendar (month or year) basis, but this effectively created 365 different 30 day periods to track.
The new bill establishes three different volume limits for direct shipments to Texas:
- No more than nine gallons (46 bottles) to the same consumer within any calendar month
- No more than 36 gallons (181 bottles) to the same consumer within any 12-month period
- No more than 35,000 gallons (14,721 cases) to all Texas consumers annually
Although some coverage of the changes has highlighted a “tripling” of the volume limit (from 3 gallons to 9 gallons), the annual consumer limit actually stays the same at 36 gallons. According to the House Research Organization’s bill analysis,
Increasing from three to nine gallons the maximum amount of shipments to the same consumer within a month would acknowledge the unique seasonal requirements of wineries as well as the realities of Texas summers. Wine is a perishable product that spoils at temperatures above 75 degrees Fahrenheit, so many out-of-state wineries are reluctant to ship to Texas, especially during July and August.
CSHB 1084 would not increase the overall amount of wine that a winery or out-of-state shipper could ship to the same consumer per year. In fact, it would codify in statute the current limit of 36 gallons per year, which is based on the existing restriction of no more than three gallons per month. It simply would allow wineries to ship somewhat larger quantities of wine to Texas consumers during the cooler seasons of the year.
Excise Taxes Rise in Two Direct Shipping States
August 14th, 2009
On September 1, 2009, excise tax rates for wine will increase in Illinois and North Carolina.
Governor Pat Quinn approved Illinois House Bill 255 on July 13, 2009. The bill increases Illinois’ excise tax on wines from $0.73 to $1.39 per gallon of wine under 20% ABV. An updated tax form for Direct Wine Shippers to report sales made on or after September 1, 2009, is already available on Illinois’ website.
Excise tax increases on alcohol were included in North Carolina’s budget bill this August. Starting September 1, North Carolina’s excise tax rates on wine will increase from $0.21 to $0.2634 per liter for wines 16% ABV and under; and from $0.24 to $0.2934 per liter for wines 16% and 24% ABV. The B-C-786 is used by licensed wine shippers use to report sales of wine and report taxes. Thie new report is not yet available online, but check North Carolina’s website on September 16 for the updated form.
As part of both states’ tax legislation, malt beverages and distilled spirits taxes will also increase next month.
Wine Institute Working To Clarify Impact Of VA ABC Circular 09-05
August 7th, 2009
Wine Institute and other industry representatives met with the Virginia ABC this week concerning their July 22, 2009 circular No. 09-05 governing use of third party service providers in direct shipments. The ABC staff was well aware of the concerns nationwide that their recent opinion has generated, but remained firm in their position that such entities cannot participate in direct shipments into the Commonwealth under current Virginia law. They rely primarily on the portions below of Va. Code sections 4.1-209.1 and at 4.1-203.
§ 4.1-209.1. Direct shipment of wine and beer; shipper’s license.
Any winery or farm winery located within or outside the Commonwealth may apply to the Board for issuance of a wine shipper’s license that shall authorize the shipment of brands of wine and farm wine identified in such application…..Any person located within or outside the Commonwealth who is authorized to sell wine or beer at retail in their state of domicile and who is not a winery, farm winery, or brewery may nevertheless apply for a wine or beer shipper’s license, or both, if such person satisfies the requirements of this section.
§ 4.1-203. Separate license for each place of business; transfer or amendment; posting; expiration; carriers.
A. Each license granted by the Board shall designate the place where the business of the licensee will be carried on. ….a separate license shall be required for each separate place of business……
In summary, the position of the Virginia ABC is that ONLY wineries and retailers licensed by their home states are eligible to receive a Virginia direct shippers’ license which permits the conduct of business (aka the shipment of wine into Virginia) ONLY at and from the business address listed on their license.
Because of widespread industry concerns, however, the Virginia ABC staff is willing to consider drafting a clarifying circular. While they are not expected to change their interpretation of current law, as part of this clarifying circular, they are willing to consider delaying the effective date of this ruling until April 1, 2010. By this time, the Virginia Legislature will have had an opportunity to change the law to resolve this problem for wine shippers nationwide. The Virginia ABC has suggested they will support the legislative change necessary to enable certain, but not all, third party providers to participate in the direct shipments of retailers and wineries to Virginia consumers.
Update: We will keep you posted as we continue to work with the Virginia ABC on this matter. Please consider their current circular in effect until another one is issued.
Terri Cofer Beirne, Eastern Counsel, Wine Institute
