Posts from the Wine Institute Category
Hope Rests in Senate as Michigan House Passes Ban on Retail to Consumer Direct Shipments
December 11th, 2008
Michigan House Bill 6644 passed with 97 Yeas and 9 Nays on December 4, 2008. If passed by the Senate, HB 6644 would ban all retailers, in-state and out-of-state, from direct shipping wine to Michigan residents. In the last days of Michigan’s current legislative session, expected to adjourn soon, the failure or passage of this bill will either give new life to or end Michigan retail direct shipping.
Less than three months ago, Michigan Federal District Court Judge Denise Hood ruled unconstitutional a Michigan law that allowed in-state retailers to direct ship to consumers while denying out-of-state retailers the same right. However, before out-of-state retailers could even fancy direct shipping wine, Governor Granholm, the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association (BWWA), and the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (LCC) filed an appeal, effectively suspending all attempts to open up the Michigan wine market in conformity with Judge Hood’s ruling. In the two short months following the stay from the appeal, Representatives Barbara Farrah and Chris Ward introduced HB 6644 to stop all retailers from competing with wholesalers.
The bill sponsors did little to hide their true objective in expediting the bill through Michigan’s Legislature. In its Legislative Analysis, the Committee on Regulatory Reform, which recommended the bill, repeatedly declares the need to protect the three-tier distribution system, citing how well it has served Michigan businesses and residents for 75 years. Among the other arguments in favor of the bill, the committee points to the supposed “untold amounts of revenue” that would be lost due to the lack of a “legal framework to license these out-of-state retail liquor establishments and to collect the same excise taxes and sales and use taxes levied on Michigan retailers and suppliers.” This argument assumes that the Michigan LCC is incapable of establishing new administrative procedures in the face of change, a reflection of an antiquated administration and not the feasibility of implementing new regulations. The bill sponsors, arguing arduously for the protection of the three-tier system, seem to overlook the very functional winery direct to consumer shipping market in Michigan which has had a regulatory system in place since April 2006. The SWRA proposes that the same rules and paperwork with which the Michigan LCC regulates direct shipping wineries can realistically be applied to retailers, thus increasing tax revenue, a straightforward process that the Michigan LCC and BWWA fail to acknowledge.
As expected, the Michigan LCC and the Michigan BWWA support the bill while the Michigan Restaurant Association (MRA) opposes it. The MRA recognizes that if the bill were to pass, members who hold retail beer and wine licenses would also be banned from serving those beverages at catered events, an important part of their business services.
Despite the disheartening speed and overwhelming majority with which the Michigan House passed the bill—it took three legislative days to go from introduction to vote—there are indications that the same will not occur in the Senate. Retailers interested in shipping wine to Michigan residents have ridden a roller coaster of legislation changes for several years; but the fate of retailer direct shipments could be set for the foreseeable future before the New Year rings in.
One Less Dry Town in New Hampshire
December 9th, 2008
Wineries with a valid direct-to-consumer shipping permit may now ship to consumers in Landaff, New Hampshire. The city of Landaff voted to end its status as a dry town effective immediately. Four dry cities remain in New Hampshire: Brookfield, Ellsworth, Monroe and Sharon. Wineries are prohibited from shipping wine to consumers in dry regions in New Hampshire. More information about shipping wine directly to New Hampshire consumers can be found by visiting the Wine Institute website.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
Face-to-Face Enforced in Indiana
December 4th, 2008
The Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission is now enforcing the statutory citation concerning the initial face-to-face transaction requirement in Section 7.1-3-26-6. The face-to-face requirement originally became effective on July 1, 2006, but was later stayed by the Court on August 24, 2007. However, the stay has expired and it is recommended that direct shippers comply with face-to-face requirement. Indiana consumers may only receive off-site shipments if they have visited the winery and completed an on-site transaction. Indiana consumers who have not completed a face-to-face transaction with the direct shipper are no longer eligible to receive wine shipments. Additional information about direct-to-consumer shipping regulations can be found by visiting http://www.wineinstitute.org/initiatives/stateshippinglaws and clicking on the state of Indiana.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
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.
Family Winemakers Court Win is Big for the Industry
November 20th, 2008
On November 19th, 2008, Judge Rya W. Zobel, in the case of Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, allowed the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Massachusetts General Laws chapter 138, section 19F:
… has a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce because as a practical matter it prevents the direct shipment of 98% of out-of-state wine to consumers but permits all wineries in Massachusetts to sell directly to consumers, retailers and wholesalers.
Therefore, the Massachusetts statute in practice prevents direct shipment of approximately 98% of out-of-state wine while allowing 100% of Massachusetts wineries to sell direct. This clearly confers disproportionate benefits on both Massachusetts wineries and wholesalers.
In the decision, Judge Zobel provided a fascinating account of the history of what became Massachusetts House Bill No. 4498. She details the original lobbying from wholesalers, pleas from in-state wineries, negotiation in the Massachusetts House and Senate, passage of the bill on November 17th, 2005, veto by then-Governor Mitt Romney, and finally an override by the Legislature on February 15th, 2006. The detailed account sheds light on a fact that we known all along - that the 30,000 gallon capacity cap was set conveniently above the production capacity of the largest winery in Massachusetts (24,000 gallons). This cap was designed to allow the Massachusetts wineries to ship directly to consumers, while simultaneously protecting Massachusetts wholesalers by prohibiting out-of-state medium and large wineries from doing the same.
The wine distribution system is shaped like an hourglass, in that there are a large number of producers (the top) and a large number of consumers (the bottom), but significantly fewer wholesalers (the middle). This structure has the effect of giving wholesalers greater bargaining power with both wineries and retailers in states where it is mandatory to have a wholesaler. Generally wholesalers prefer to carry a larger volume of a particular wine, rather than an equivalent volume of several wines, because it is more profitable for a wholesaler to warehouse, manage and sell a single
wine. Many wineries produce both specialty wines in small quantities and higher volume wines. It is rare for a winery producing approximately 30,000 gallons per year to have all of its wines represented by a wholesaler.
Family Winemakers of California put out a press release immediately yesterday, hailing the decision as a win for the industry. Paul Kronenberg, president of Family Winemakers of California, was quoted as saying “State laws that protect and perpetuate wholesaler monopolies at the expense of wineries seeking market opportunities and consumers seeking a wider choice in wine, run counter to the concept of free trade within the nation”. Tracy Genesen, lead attorney on the case from Kirkland & Ellis, said “The decision tracks Granholm, since ‘allowing States to discriminate against out-of-state wine invites a multiplication of preferential trade areas destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause.” Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis explained that “Freedom to conduct commerce across state boundaries without undue restrictions was a fundamental principle of the framers of the Constitution”.
Free the Grapes! also published a press release yesterday, highlighting the case as a big loss for efforts by wholesalers to ban “legal, regulated wine shipping”. “Today’s ruling in Family Winemakers v. Jenkins strikes a blow to the wholesalers’ campaign by declaring that Massachusetts’ restrictions on winery-to-consumer shipments are unconstitutional”.
This is a big win for the industry. We applaud Family Winemakers of California, Coalition for Free Trade, Kirkland & Ellis, and everyone else involved for all of their hard work in fighting this long battle. The ruling will certainly have ripple effects not only in Massachusetts, but also Ohio, Arizona, and many other states as current and future examples of such non-facial discrimination will be questioned, challenged, and overturned.
We’ll keep you posted as this story develops. The immediate effects in Massachusetts are unknown at this time (see our post “Why Can’t I Have a Boston Wine Party?” from June, 2007). Common carrier restrictions will need to be clarified before any out-of-state shipping can commence. Stay tuned for more information and analysis…
Road-Trippin’: Self-Distribution in Oklahoma May Be Too Far Out of the Way for Some
November 14th, 2008
On November 4, 2008, Oklahoma voters passed State Question 743 (SQ 743) by approximately a four to one margin. The referendum opened self-distribution for in-state and out-of-state wineries to distribute to retailers and restaurants in the state of Oklahoma, with some restrictions. Self-distribution in Oklahoma is now more accessible to wineries across the country.
In-state wineries are the major beneficiaries of SQ 743. In 2000, a voter referendum approved self-distribution for in-state wineries, only to be struck down as unconstitutional in a 2006 district court decision, due to its bias against out-of-state wineries. Since then, in-state wineries have had to adhere to pre-2000 referendum laws, which require the use of the three-tier system to get products on the shelves and on the menu. But with the overwhelming approval of SQ 743 on November 4, 2008, in-state wineries that produce under 10,000 gallons annually are now able to forgo the middleman and self-distribute directly to retailers and restaurants. However, the relative ease with which in-state wineries may self-distribute is not mirrored for out-of-state wineries.
The new constitutional provision set forth by SQ 743 has also increased access to Oklahoma retailers and restaurants for out-of-state wineries, but with obvious obstacles. While out-of-state wineries can legally distribute to Oklahoma retailers and restaurants, they must own or lease the vehicles used to transport the wines. In addition, use of common or private carriers is prohibited. These delivery restrictions apply to both in-state and out-of-state wineries, but limit out-of-state wineries to a greater degree. These restrictions are not unfamiliar to one of the legislators who sponsored the bill. The Journal Record found that Representative Danny Morgan “questioned if it would be cost effective for an out-of-state winery to drive a few thousand gallons of wine all the way to Oklahoma,” an indication that those who initiated the bill knew of the barriers it would create for out-of-state wineries.
Although State Question 743 opens doors previously locked for both out-of-state and in-state wineries, a clause, stating, “If any part of this measure is found to be unconstitutional, no winemaker could sell wine directly to retail package stores or restaurants in Oklahoma” would shut and bolt those doors yet again. Tom Wark made the suggestion that wholesalers may very well utilize this clause by arguing that it is discriminatory, which would once again take away the right to self-distribute. This clause, in addition to the hoops that must be jumped through in order for a winery to self-distribute according to this referendum, adds to the complicated and uncertain situation of shipping wine to Oklahoma. State Question 743 is a step toward opening up self-distribution in Oklahoma. However, there is much to be improved upon, not least the indirect restrictions placed on out-of-state wineries.
The WSLCB Announces Online Tax Reporting and Payment System
November 3rd, 2008
Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) just made filing monthly summary tax reports and paying taxes a little easier by providing an online tax filing option for wineries shipping to consumers and retailers in Washington. The WSLCB encourages wineries to use their Online Tax Reporting and Payment System which saves time and simplifies the tax reporting and payment process. Users can access the system 24 hours a day, view previously filed reports online and confirm tax payments have been made.
Eligible users should contact the WSLCB Beer and Wine Tax Unit at beerwinetaxes@liq.wa.gov or (360) 664-1721 for account information. The system can be accessed by visiting the WSLCB website at www.liq.wa.gov.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
Mark Your Calendar Because Idaho Won’t: Direct Shipper Permit Renewal
October 31st, 2008
This is a reminder that Idaho Direct Shipping Permit holders must submit a renewal form before the expiration date of their current permit (Direct Shipping Permits expire a year after the date of issue). Idaho does not send out renewal notices, thus it is the responsibility of the permit holder to obtain and submit the renewal form. You can find the form on the main page of the Idaho Alcohol Beverage Control under the name “Idaho Direct Shipper Renewal Form.” A $25 renewal fee and, if you are an out-of-state direct shipper, a certified copy of your state winery license must be submitted with the form. Also, a contact person’s e-mail address is required to complete the renewal application.
There is good news regarding Idaho’s bond requirement for some direct shippers. Direct shippers may request to have their bond requirement removed after one year. However, in order to qualify, the direct shipper must have an impeccable record of compliance and submit a letter of request to the Idaho Tax Commission.
Direct Shipping Online Seminar: Last Chance to Register
October 15th, 2008
This is a quick reminder that we will hold an online direct shipping seminar for wineries tomorrow (October 16th) at 10am PT. Over 550 people have registered for this event so far. Click the button below to register for this FREE event.
October 16th Online Direct Shipping Seminar
DHL to Cease Wine Shipments Nov 3rd
October 6th, 2008
Steve Bachmann at The Wine Collector is reporting that DHL has notified its customers that it will cease wine shipments effective November 3rd. DHL has struggled to gain a foothold in the interstate wine shipping market, where FedEx and UPS dominate.
If you have received the notification letter from DHL, we’d love to see a copy of it. You can always reach our blog authors and editors at blog@shipcompliant.com.
UPDATE: We received a copy of the letter that DHL sent out to their customers. See the letter below.
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.
District of Columbia Increases Volume Limits
September 29th, 2008
Washington, D.C. recently made an adjustment to its direct-to-consumer wine shipping law that benefits the industry and consumers. The volume limit has increased from 1 quart to 1 case per person per winery per month. Washington, D.C. consumers are now allowed to order up to 1 case of wine per month from any number of wineries. There continues to be no permit, reporting or tax requirements for direct shippers. However, wineries must comply with their common carrier’s wine shipping policy.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
Indiana Still Standing on Their Face
September 19th, 2008
On September 11th, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal said that they will not rehear an appeal concerning the original opinion of the Court in Indiana. The denial to rehear the case confirms that currently it is legally within the power of the State of Indiana to require wineries to ship wine to Indiana consumers only if an initial face-to-face transaction occurs. According to the Family Winemakers of California, this was “due to the fact that there was an insufficient evidentiary record to demonstrate that such a provision discriminated against interstate commerce”. Since a rehearing was denied, the only step remaining for Baude v. Heath would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Louisiana Shipping Rules
September 18th, 2008
In response to questions about shipping wine to Louisiana, I thought a short summary of direct-to-consumer wine shipping rules was in order. Louisiana regulations do not prohibit wineries with a relationship with a licensed wholesaler in Louisiana from making off-site direct-to-consumer shipments. The Alcohol and Tobacco Control Office allows a winery to direct ship any label that is not consigned by contract to a licensed wholesaler in the quantity stated in the law. This is allowed even if the winery has other labels consigned to the wholesaler. Wineries may ship up to 4 cases per household per year and are required to obtain a direct shipper’s permit before shipping to Louisiana consumers. In addition, wineries must pay taxes and file reports. Should you have any questions please contact Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at 415-356-7530.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
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.
New Requirements for S Permit Applications and Renewals in Ohio
August 29th, 2008
For eligible wineries, SB 150 has created quite a bit of change to the existing direct shipping law. Since the dawn of Ohio’s direct shipping regulations, in order to be eligible for the “S Permit”, which allows wine manufacturers to ship wine directly to Ohio consumers, the wine manufacturer must produce less than a certain number of gallons per year. As was reported in June, SB 150 increased the maximum production requirement from 150,000 gallons to 250,000 gallons (the maximum production requirement described for S permit holders is also true for wine manufacturer’s that hold a “B-2a permit”, allowing for shipments of wine directly to retailers, a.k.a. self-distribution). SB 150 also lowered the excise tax rate for direct shippers and added a costly label registration requirement, which may further deter wine manufacturers from shipping into Ohio.
First the good news.
There are now only two types of excise taxes that must be paid by B2a and S permit holders, instead of three: taxes levied by a county for sports facilities (e.g. Cuyahoga County tax); and a $.02/gallon tax on wine and sparkling wine, levied by the state of Ohio to encourage Ohio grape industries. These taxes are not due until the end of the year; updated tax forms are not yet available.
Now, the not so good news.
Effective Monday, September 1st, label registration of all wine products sold in Ohio is required from all direct shippers. The registration fee is $50 per new label. Direct shippers should submit registrations for all products shipped into Ohio via the Application for Label Registration with a copy of the TTB COLA. If the direct shipper already sells products through an Ohio distributor, they only need to register additional products that have not already been registered. S permit holders should submit the applications for label registration form prior to the October 1, 2008 permit renewal deadline. B-2a permit holders should submit applications for label registration as soon as possible, as this requirement goes into effect September 1st, 2008.
As of September 1st, S permit holders must also register as “S-5″ wine suppliers. This is a new requirement, however if the S permit holder also ships to Ohio distributors, this registration will have already taken place. For those that have not already registered as a wine supplier in Ohio, the initial processing fee for this registration is $100. In addition to the processing fee, the Supplier Registration costs $300, however the $300 fee is waived for wineries that only hold an S permit and do not have a distributor relationship in Ohio. The Supplier Registration form requires notarization.
The Lone Star State: To File Monthly or Quarterly, that is the Question
August 22nd, 2008
As was reported earlier this week, the Texas C-240 Direct Shipper’s Report will change from a monthly to a quarterly return for orders shipped after September 1st. However, we’ve received a number of questions about how to report shipments for the month of August.
August is the last month that will require a monthly return, which will report shipments to Texas consumers only for the month of August. This report is due September 15th, and should include tracking numbers for each shipment. The newly updated quarterly frequency will commence on September 1, 2008, including orders shipped from September through November, and is due December 15th. Also, please note that the new quarterly frequency is based on Texas’ fiscal year (beginning September 1st), not on the familiar calendar year (beginning January 1st), therefore the quarterly reports will be due on the following schedule: December 15th, 2008; March 15th, 2009; June 15th, 2009; etc.
Good News from Texas
August 20th, 2008
On September 1, 2008 Texas will begin requiring direct shipping reports to be submitted on a quarterly basis. Reports will be due within 15 days of the completion of every 3 month quarter. Currently, direct shippers must file a report and pay taxes every month. The new report will no longer require direct shippers to report the common carrier tracking number for each shipment, the name of the common carrier will be sufficient.
All permit holders have been mailed a copy of the Quarterly Direct Shipper’s Report by the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission and the form will soon be available on the TABC and Wine Institute website. The last monthly reporting period is August 2008. Shipments sent on or after September 1, 2008 should be included in the quarterly report.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
Georgia Clarifies Direct-to-Consumer Shipping Rule
August 19th, 2008
Wine Institute has received information clarifying Georgia’s direct-to-consumer wine shipping regulations. The rule allowing on-site shipments without a permit was not repealed on July 1, 2008 when the new permit law became effective. All wineries may continue to ship up to 5 cases of wine to a Georgia household annually provided the wine was purchased on-site. Wineries are not required to have a Direct Shipping Permit, pay taxes or file reports for on-site shipments.
A Direct Shipping Permit is required for all off-site shipments to a Georgia address. All bonded wineries are eligible to apply for a GA permit. The holder of a Direct Shipping Permit may ship up to 12 cases of wine sold off-site to a GA address annually. Direct Shippers with an approved Direct Shipper’s Permit are required to report, pay state and local sales tax, and excise tax on off-site direct-to-consumer shipments. On-site shipments do not count against the 12 case volume limit and should not be included in any direct shipping reports.
For example, if a GA consumer visits a winery the winery may ship up to 5 cases of wine to the GA consumer’s address as long as the 5 cases of wine were purchased on-site. The same consumer returns to GA and decides he would like to join the winery’s wine club. If the winery holds a direct shipping permit the winery may ship up to 12 additional cases of wine to the GA consumer’s address during the same year. If the winery does not have a direct shipping permit the consumer cannot join the wine club or receive off-site direct-to-consumer shipments. Should you have any additional questions please contact Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at 415-356-7530.
Annie Bones, State Relations - Wine Institute
Follow us on Twitter: winecompliance
August 19th, 2008
When we make a post here on the ShipCompliant blog, we take the time to really understand an issue, research the facts involved, and make a substantive post that adds value to the issue that we are discussing. However, the ShipCompliant research team hears news and information from many different sources every day that may not necessarily end up as the subject of a post on this blog. Because of this, we recently started posting updates on Twitter to give you a heads up about articles or blog posts that we think are interesting in the world of wine compliance.
If you’re interested in learning more about wine compliance, please follow winecompliance on twitter! If you don’t yet have an account on twitter, we also added a sidebar widget that lists the five most recent updates on the bottom right of this page ->
