Author Archive
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.
The Poster Prohibited State Slackens Slightly
August 8th, 2008
Last Friday, Wine and Spirits Daily reported that Utah’s grip on liquor has let up, at least a little bit. The recent rule change applies only to Utah brewers and distilleries but this could potentially be good news for everyone in the alcohol industry. The new ruling allows Utah residents to purchase onsite orders from Utah breweries and distilleries. Utah wineries have enjoyed this same freedom since 1991. This decision is part of Governor Huntsman’s effort to free the state of the private clubs. Though it hasn’t been mentioned as a step in the governor’s plans to “liberalize” Utah’s liquor laws, perhaps this loosening will open up the gateway for responsible direct shipping legislation in the future.
Another Paper Return Bites the Dust: Required Electronic Filing in New York (Due July 15th)
July 10th, 2008
On July 1st, 2008, New York announced that their semi-annual “New York Wine Manufacturer’s Report of All Wine Directly Sold and Shipped” is required to be filed online. Shipments made from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008 must be reported to the New York Liquor Authority by July 15th, 2008. Online submission of the report consists of emailing data files, in a .csv or .xls format to Direct.Shipment@abc.state.ny.us.
Even though the new reporting format was forced upon direct shippers rather abruptly, for many, filing the Wine Manufacturer’s Report electronically is a much more reasonable request than the old paper format. Because the old paper format contained only twelve rows per page on which to report detailed order information (one product per row, per shipment), the report was sometimes more than 500 pages long! That’s some serious paper waste.
Information that is reported in the new electronic format is very similar to the information reported in the old paper format. Among details to be reported via the data file: product name, COLA numbers for each product shipped, quantity shipped, price paid by the purchaser, the name and address of the purchaser, and the name and address of the common carrier.
You can view further information on the new requirement and New York’s instructions for submission on the New York State Liquor Authority’s website. Remember, the use of paper forms to submit the required information is no longer permitted. All reports containing the required information must be submitted by way of a computer data file.
Illinois Offers a Bit of Green for Direct Wine Shippers
July 2nd, 2008
For those of you that have started shipping to Illinois under their new permit system, your first round of reporting will come due this month. Fortunately, Illinois makes it easy to report your shipments and pay taxes. Electronic filing and payment is available for the Liquor Direct Wine Shipper Return (RL-26-W), and the Sales and Use Tax Return (ST-1). As we discussed in an earlier post, electronic filing is better for the environment, and it saves you printing and mailing costs; that’s two shades of green!
Before you begin the process for Illinois electronic filing, you will need your Illinois Business Tax number (IBT), your PIN, your payment information, and you will of course need to know how much tax you owe. You should have received your PIN when you registered with the Illinois Department of Revenue. If you have not received your PIN, or do not know what it is, you can contact the Department of Revenue at 217-782-6045, and they will provide you with your PIN.
To start electronic filing for the ST-1, click here, and then click “start filing.” To begin electronic filing for the RL-26-W, click here, then click, “Start Using Webfile.” You can save progress and view submitted reports up to a year after submission.
Washington: Making Change, Streamlined Style
June 13th, 2008
On July 1st, 2008, when Substitute Senate Bill 5089 takes effect, Washington will join twenty-one other states that have conformed to the “Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement”. The bill will change the way retail sales tax is collected for some Washington businesses. Beginning July 1st, 2008, any business with nexus in Washington must pay sales tax based on the destination of the shipped order. Previously, Washington businesses that shipped orders to Washington residents could pay sales tax based on where the order was originating from, making local taxes fairly easy to calculate.
The new taxing regulation requires Washington wineries to pay local taxes to every destination to which they ship (via a single sales/use tax return). This could be a bit of a jolt for Washington wineries. With over 300 different tax rates and location codes, based on special districts that cannot be defined solely by city and county designations, filling out the periodic tax return could become significantly more difficult.
Out-of state wineries will see no changes in their tax payments. Destination-based sales tax in Washington should be nothing new for them; out-of-state wineries have had to pay destination-based sales tax since July 1st, 2006, when the Wine Shipper’s License first became available.
If you are a Washington business that ships or delivers goods, be sure to check the Washington DOR’s website for useful information about the change. On this page, you can use a number of different tax lookup tools as well as watch online tutorials.
City Tax in Arizona: Get with the Program… and the Non-Program
June 2nd, 2008
Just as a state can create their own alcoholic beverage regulations, so can they implement their own, distinct, taxing regulations. Arizona has recently clarified their sales tax requirements, applicable to wineries licensed to sell offsite sales of wine directly to Arizona consumers.
According to the Arizona Department of Revenue, sales tax (called, “transaction privilege or use” tax) must be remitted on a local basis. This is the way Arizona tax has been handled since Arizona first became available to direct shippers in September of 2006; tax rates are based on the destination of the order. Most cities in Arizona have the State Department of Revenue collect their taxes for them. However, there are thirteen cities within Arizona that collect their own taxes. These cities are commonly referred to as “Non-Program” Cities. Non-Program Cities collect their own taxes independently from the State. This means direct wine shippers are required to register with all of the thirteen Non-Program cities that they ship to, individually, and remit separate sales tax returns to each of the cites they are registered with.
What does this mean to you? If you are licensed to sell wine directly to consumers in Arizona, you must contact each of the Non-Program cities directly in order to register to collect and remit sales tax with each Non-Program city (this is in addition to becoming licensed to pay County and “Program-City” tax with the state of Arizona). Only wineries that produce less than 20,000 gallons per year can currently become licensed to ship wine directly to consumers in Arizona via the Out-of-State Domestic Farm Winery permit. Wineries that produce more than 20,000 gallons and wineries without a permit can ship onsite sales to Arizona without a permit. In this scenario, wineries are not required to remit sales tax.
The thirteen Non-Program cities are: Apache Junction, Avondale, Chandler, Flagstaff, Glendale, Mesa, Nogales, Peoria, Phoenix, Prescott, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson. A sales tax license usually costs around $50 per city annually, in addition to an application fee, which can range from $0 to $25.
Wine Distribution Notes - Release 28
May 21st, 2008
The latest version of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing or downloading. Release 28 highlights changes in the following categories: Age & Identity Verification, Rethinking Reciprocity and State Notes, specifically Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania. Headings of sections with substantial changes since the preceding release (published in early April, 2008) are highlighted, so that you can easily find the updated sections.
You can always view the most current version of Houchins’s Notes on Wine Distribution by visiting ShipCompliantBlog.com and clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right-hand side of the page.
Update Your Address Books: New Hampshire Has a Revised Direct Shipping Monthly Report
April 25th, 2008
New Hampshire has updated their Monthly Direct Shipping Report Form. According to the NH Bureau of Enforcement, many wineries have been sending this report to the wrong address; the new form has been issued in part to remedy the incorrect send-to address. The new form is in an Excel format for easier use, and will automatically calculate the total due, based off of the invoice totals that you enter. The new form is available on the NH Liquor Commission Website. You can also view the new form by clicking here.
Make sure your records are up to date with the current contact info for the NH Bureau of Enforcement:
Mailing Address (send your returns to this address):
Bureau of Enforcement
Direct Shipping
PO Box 1795
Concord, NH 03302-1795
Physical Address:
Bureau of Enforcement
Direct Shipping
10 Commercial St
Concord, NH 03301
Tel: (603) 271-8543
Fax: (603) 271-3758
Though the updated form is in an electronic format, New Hampshire does not allow you to submit copies of invoices or payment electronically. You can only send in an electronic version of the Direct Shipping Monthly Report if you have zero orders to report; you can send zero order reports to directshippers@liquor.state.nh.us.
Wine Is Not the Maine Event
April 18th, 2008
A bill that would have allowed in-state and out-of-state producers, suppliers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers to ship wine to Maine consumers passed through the Senate but after a close vote, died on the House floor yesterday evening. If LD1987 (a.k.a. SP781) would have passed as amended by the Senate, the bill would have allowed licensed entities to ship up to 108 Liters of wine to an of-age individual in a calendar year. Other requirements:
- Containers of wine shipped cannot be smaller than 750 mL
- Report and pay sales and excise taxes
- The bureau may adopt rules requiring specific labeling and registration requirements for direct shippers
- “The direct shipper or 3rd party carrier contracted by the direct shipper… check for a valid form of identification demonstrating proof of age.” Common carriers register with the state of Maine.
LD 1987 went far in its legislative journey before failing in the House. The bill would have been a step forward for Maine consumers and offered wine producers, retailers, and wholesalers alike an equal opportunity to ship wine directly to eager consumers.
Caps Off to Dolan’s Intentions
April 11th, 2008
In October of last year, wineries began shipping directly to Ohio residents under a new direct shipping permit law. When the provisions of the law in Ohio were first announced, one of the major subjects of controversy was the capacity cap, which only allows wineries that produce less than 150,000 gallons annually to obtain a permit. Capacity caps continue to be a subject of controversy in all the states that use them (currently Arizona, Massachusetts, Indiana Kentucky and Ohio; Florida could adopt a 250,000 gallon cap if SB1096 or HB1293 is passed).
Continuing the controversy, Ohio Representative Matthew J. Dolan is looking to increase the capacity cap for wineries from 150,000 to 250,000. Though the increase in production volume may be a “little step” in the right direction, it certainly seems like a very little step, allowing only 17 more California wine labels to be shipped to Ohio residents. According to The Plain Dealer, Dolan originally vowed to eliminate the cap altogether, but got a lot of pushback from the Ohio Department of Commerce and from Ohio Distributors (as Uncorked points out, “no surprise”).
Just next door, Indiana also prevents wineries producing over a certain amount of wine per year from shipping directly to its residents. Indiana’s original capacity cap was 500,000, but will increase on July 1, 2008 to 1,000,000 gallons since SB0107 was signed on March 13th by governor Daniels. Though this is the highest volume cap of the four states that have said restrictions,
Many will agree that any permit system that discriminates against a winery for the amount of wine produced is not an ideal permit system. Furthermore, the constitutionality of these caps is being challenged through litigation (see Family Winemakers of California vs. Jenkins). State legislators may adopt a capacity cap restriction for any number of reasons, but none of them seem very fair. The state may claim that it is trying to protect its own wineries by establishing the volume cap just above that of the highest producing in-state winery, but who else is being protected while the consumer’s interests fall by the wayside?
Update: In our original post, we mistakenly stated that that Indiana has a capacity cap that is similar to OH, KY, MA, and AZ. The 500,000 gallon “cap” in Indiana that will increase to 1,000,000 gallons on July 1st, 2008 only applies to wineries in that the applicant must not sell more than this amount of wine per year IN Indiana, excluding wine shipped to an out-of-state address.
Rhode Island and Alabama: Let My Pinot Go!
March 27th, 2008
As legislative sessions continue to progress across the country, more and more legislative bills concerning direct shipments of wine are being considered. If the bills mentioned in this post pass, two states will change from being prohibited states to permit states. The last state to change from a prohibited state to a permit state was Indiana, and that turned out to be a little messy. The bills for Rhode Island and Alabama are straight forward and fair - let’s hope they make it through the process.
If HB 520 or its companion SB 412 in Alabama, and S 2125 in Rhode Island pass, they would allow for any licensed wine producer, supplier, importer, wholesaler, distributor or retailer to apply for a direct shipper license ($100 initial fee; $50 per year thereafter) that would allow them to ship up to 24 cases of wine per year to an of-age resident of the state, as long as the resident is not located in a dry area. Sales and excise taxes must be paid annually.
Tennessee Wholesalers - Crossing the Line?
March 24th, 2008
There are a couple of direct shipping bills in the Tennessee legislature that would allow Tennessee consumers to order wine from any winery or retailer in the country, with some of the regular restrictions. This would be a big deal, considering direct shipments into Tennessee have not been allowed from any state in recent history. However, what would normally be a run-of-the-mill direct shipping bill has turned into a subject of controversy over actions taken by Tennessee wholesalers to sway public opinion of the bill.
Wine Spectator Online reports that Tennessee wholesalers have been sending direct-mail and online initiatives to Tennessee residents, saying that SB 1977 and its counterpart, HB 1850 are a threat to Tennessee’s youth and asking them to sign a petition for children to come first. Jackson, one of the authors of the bill, has notified the Tennessee ethics commission of the wholesalers’ intent, saying that this is illegal lobbying because the direct-mail and online initiatives say nothing about being funded by the Tennessee wholesalers. He argues, “[those who view the teen drinking initiatives] think it’s some sort of philanthropic organization that’s concerned about youth consumption of alcohol. But the populous is deprived of the ability to find out who’s really behind this campaign” and that the bill wouldn’t increase availability of wine to minors. Tom Wark of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association issued a press release about Tennessee SB 1977 and has this to say about minors obtaining wine via direct shipping:
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission both looked at the issue and determined that minors are highly unlikely to use direct shipping to obtain wine. No state that allows direct shipping has reported even a small problem with minors accessing wine via direct shipping.
That being said, we should focus on what is really important about this bill: consumer choice. If passed, SB 1977 would allow permitted wine manufacturers, producers, suppliers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers to ship wine directly to Tennessee residents. Permitted shippers could ship no more than 18 liters per year to an of-age Tennessee resident in a “wet” area. The permitted shipper would have to pay a $100 application fee, a $50 annual license fee, and pay sales and excise taxes on all shipments.
Kill the Bill: Maryland and Direct Wine Shipping
March 19th, 2008
Maryland continues to be one of six states in which direct shipping is completely prohibited. In a previous post we reported that HB1260 and SB616 were favorable direct shipping bills in Maryland’s current legislative session. Both of these bills died in committee. If passed, they would have allowed permitted wineries and retailers to ship directly to Maryland residents. Though the bill was widely supported, the Licensed Beverage Distributors of Maryland argued that the bill would “hurt Maryland wineries, reduce distribution-related jobs in the state, hamper tax collection and make it easier for minors to obtain alcohol” (as reported in the Baltimore Sun), “It’s always a tough fight when a majority of people stand up for the common good against entrenched special interests”
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.
Just Peachy: More Wineries Could Be Eligible for Direct Shipping
March 10th, 2008
A bill is being considered in Georgia that could potentially open up the state to all wineries for direct shipping. The permit system that is in place right now works pretty well for eligible wineries, but the major issue is that some funky language makes it so that wineries cannot ship offsite orders to Georgia residents if the winery is represented by a distributor in Georgia.
3-6-31.(c)(4)No holder of a special order shipping license shall accept any order for any wine that is otherwise registered and designated pursuant to this title or from a person who is licensed under this title;
That little paragraph causes big problems for many wineries. House Bill 1061 would eliminate the distributor restriction, and would introduce a few more minor changes:
- a winery would no longer have to pay a bond, designate sales territories, or name a wholesaler in each territory (a conflicting law);
- brands must still be registered;
- the person placing the order must state affirmatively that he or she is of age before the order can be processed;
- of-age individuals are limited to 12 cases of wine from each licensee per year (up from 5 cases per household); and
- it is explicitly stated that wineries may not ship to licensed premises,that sales and excise taxes must be paid and that a shipper must be a winery.
House Bill 1061 has already been approved by the house and was read and referred to a committee on February 28th by the Senate. All in all it’s not a bad bill: More wineries can ship to Georgia, the law makes more sense, and Georgia gets more money.
Wine Distribution Notes - Release 26
March 6th, 2008
Release 26 of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing.
These notes are a great resource for keeping up to date with developing trends in direct shipping and direct distribution. As always, you can find the most recent version of these notes at the ShipCompliant Blog by clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right hand side of the page.
Each new release shows green highlighting on sections with changes from the preceding release. Release 26 highlights changes from the last two releases: highlights from release 25 include updates to Alaska, Maryland, New Mexico and Tennessee. Highlights from release 26 include updates to Florida, Indiana, and others. Read the notes to find out what else is new.
Three New Florida Bills: Not the Ducks or the Bucks, but the Winery Shipper Ones
February 24th, 2008
The Regular session of the Florida Legislature will convene on March 4, 2008. During the 60 days following, legislators should decide on one of three winery shipping bills that could be introduced into Florida law. I say should, hoping that last year’s unsuccessful passage will not be repeated. Since 2006, wineries have been able to send relatively unrestricted shipments to Florida consumers. Back in 2006, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) decided to become compliant with Granholm; because of this they have allowed shipments, hoping legislation would be passed. In 2007, many thought they might take this allowance away after all three bills failed to pass into law.
The 2008 winery shipping legislation contestants have several things in common. The bills would require a $1000 - $5000 bond, a $250 permit (the annual application and registration fee for Florida Farm wineries is $100), varied annual shipment quantity limitations per household, reporting and payment of sales and excise taxes, and applicants must produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine annually.
HB 693 (Bogdanoff) - In 2007, the only bill that did not have a capacity cap was authored by Bogdanoff. Unfortunately, this year the cap is set to 250,000 gallons just like the other two bills. Other restrictions that stand out: Fingerprinting of applicants; consumers may not purchase more than 18 cases of wine per household; Age verification (receiving a copy, electronic or otherwise, of a purchaser’s driver’s license; or asking for and recording all purchasers’ names, ages, and dates of birth); if the applicant is owned by a winery that sells more than 250,000 gallons of wine, the division may not issue a license.
SB 1736 (Geller) - Geller was also an author of a competing 2007 bill. The 2008 version looks pretty much the same: The applicant must produce less than 250,000 gallons of wine annually; brand registration is required for all wine shipped; the Winery Shipper must require the person to state that he or she is 21 years of age or older, ship no more than 15 cases per household per year; the Winery Shipper shall offer the brands of wine shipped under this section to license distributors; knowingly and intentionally shipping wine to a person under 21 is a 3rd degree felony.
Of the three bills in 2008, it seems SB 1096 (Margolis) is the one wine lovers and makers will be rooting for the least. Without focusing too much on the regular restrictions, let’s just note the more shocking ones:
Legislative intent
“The Legislature finds that the importation, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages require strict regulation in order to promote temperance by discouraging consumption by underage persons… fiscal health of the state… these purposes are best achieved through the state’s comprehensive system of licensing and regulation, including the three-tier system of alcohol distribution which has been the law of this state since the repeal of Prohibition.”
– Confusing distributor language: “The division may not issue or renew a license under this section if the applicant or licensee has appointed a distributor in this state, unless the applicant provides to the division a copy of a written notice sent to the distributor of intent to obtain a winery shipper’s license 1 year before applying for a winery shipper’s license under this section” (if passed, this would go into effect 4 months from now making it hard to give 1 year notice before the license becomes available.) However, it is later stated that “A licensed winery shipper must offer to its distributor for purchase and sale per calendar year the same brands and quantities of wine shipped per calendar year under this section”
– Licensees may not ship more than 4 cases per year per household. In addition to the licensee restriction, consumers may not purchase more than 4 cases per household per year. For common carriers, the signature form must inform the recipient that the wine is for personal or household consumption only, and not for resale. Wineries must have a written contract with the common carrier saying that the common carrier will do this.
– Knowingly and intentionally shipping wine to a person under 21 is a 3rd degree felony.
Since 2006, wineries and wine lovers have enjoyed relative freedom when shipping wine directly to Florida consumers. Florida is ranked #2 in table wine consumption, which accounts for a big chunk of addressable market share of direct shipments. If any of these bills pass as is, it might feel like you’re living with your parents again; you can go to the party, but you can’t stay out past 8:00. Maybe if we keep putting the pressure on the lawmakers, we’ll at least be able to stay out past midnight.
Reciprocity Lives (well, at least in New Mexico)
February 18th, 2008
With all the support SB59 received, it seemed hopeful that another reciprocal state would move from yellow to blue. The new bill would have replaced the existing reciprocal wine shipping law with a permit system for both wineries and retailers. Regrettably, it did not reach the New Mexico House floor before the session ended last Friday. As reported by Free The Grapes, SB59 received favorable testimony from The New Mexico Restaurant Association, New Mexico winemakers, and the New Mexico Retailers Association, and was endorsed by New Mexico Wine Growers Association. The bill went through most of the legislative process, encouraging the hopeful inception all the more; it passed the Senate Finance Committee on February 8th and was passed by the Senate on February 9th, but there was not enough time left for it to be passed by the House.
The bill would have allowed in- and out-of-state wineries and retailers to apply for a “Direct Wine Shipment Permit,” for a fee, with some of the regular limitations. New Mexico would have been the 11th out of 13 states to change from a reciprocal status since the Granholm decision outlawed discriminatory practices for out-of-stater’s in 2005. Not all changes since Granholm have been 100% non-discriminatory. As many will tell you (see this SWRA blog post for some background info), retailers and wineries are not always treated the same, but this bill would have been good for both.
Seeing Double: Ship Your West Virginia Report Twice
February 7th, 2008
We’ve received many questions about what West Virginia requires as far as reporting is concerned, so we contacted the ABCA to clear all confusion of the matter. On the West Virginia Direct Shipper’s Report it says, “Prepare this report in duplicate, mail the original and payment of taxes to the WV State Tax Department… and a copy to Alcohol Beverage Control Administration…” We found that, statutorily, the Direct Shipper also needs to submit invoices along with the report to both West Virginia entities, even though it is not explicitly stated on the report. Additionally, the copy that needs to be sent to the ABCA should include A) a copy of the return B) a copy of the invoices; and C) a copy of payment to the Tax Department (to submit a copy of payment, just photocopy the check that you send to the Tax Department before you send it out). These requirements can be time consuming and require a lot of paper, but are necessary to comply with the ABCA’s regulations.
