SENDING SAMPLES: Federal versus State Requirements

by Krista Walton

Wineries, distilleries, and breweries often want to send samples to out-of-state distributors to promote their product. While it would seem easy to ship a small sample to a potential buyer, there are several restrictions that apply. Federal regulations state that someone within the alcohol industry may give a sample to a distributor who has not purchased the brand within the past year. Each state has their own regulations regarding sending samples. Some follow the one year restriction as outlined by federal regulations, while others lengthen the time.

Federal regulations also provide size restrictions on how much of any brand may be sent to a distributor. Wine and distilled spirits have a limit of 3 liters per brand and beer or malt beverages have a limit of 3 gallons per brand. Federal law does allow larger samples if the product is not available in a size within the size limitations. If so, then the next larger size may be furnished. Most states have quantity limits that are much smaller than the federal regulations outline. Often the limit is 750 ml for wine, distilled spirits and malt beverages, but some states only allow 50 ml of the product to be sent for sampling.

Federal regulations do not have any other restrictions, but several states do. For example, several states require the samples to be labeled as samples and often require specific phrases to be clearly marked on the bottles. Other state regulations apply to who may consume the samples, who may transport the samples, and how records of each sample show be kept.

More often than not regulations pertaining to shipping samples are not clear and are hard to locate in the state’s liquor code.  The Compli team has diligently researched these regulations with our partners in the legal community so don’t hesitate to call or email us with specific questions toll free (877) 255-1440 and info@compli-beverage.com

For more information on federal regulations see Title 27 CFR Part 6.91 as seen here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ce02a937c2464e842b699e05c4c20c3&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title27/27cfr6_main_02.tpl

TTB Ownership Updates

by Lea Fainer

TTB Update- May 19, 2010

In a recent conversation with Scott Cain, Winery Applications Unit Chief at the Department of the Treasury- Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Mr. Cain informed me that the TTB has recently begun to more strictly enforce the regulations contained in the Federal Alcohol Administration Act:  Title 27 of the United States Code:

§ 1.44   Automatic termination of permits.

No basic permit shall be leased, sold, or otherwise voluntarily transferred, and, in the event of such lease, sale, or other voluntary transfer, such basic permit shall automatically terminate thereupon. If any basic permit is transferred by operation of law or if actual or legal control of the permittee is acquired, directly or indirectly whether by stock ownership or in any other manner, by any person, then such permit shall be automatically terminated at the expiration of 30 days thereafter: Provided, that if within such 30-day period application for a new basic permit is made by the transferee or permittee, respectively, then the outstanding basic permit shall continue in effect until such time as the application is finally acted upon.

That Was Then…This Is Now

If you are a permitted winery currently considering reorganizing your company structure, the above regulation is not to be taken lightly. In the past, the TTB has taken a more lenient approach to enforcement of “timely filings” for ownership changes.  This was most often experienced in cases where a new legal entity had been formed, but no new individuals were being introduced into the company (e.g.: a sole proprietor incorporates and is now the sole officer and shareholder).  The TTB would overlook the 30-day deadline, and the winery could continue to operate as their application was reviewed. In an attempt to rein in on the recent rash of mergers and acquisitions of wineries, the TTB is no longer taking this lax approach, regardless of how minor the entity change might seem.

The Cost of Enforcement

Today using this same example, the winery would receive a certified “Cease and Desist” notice from the TTB until the application related to the new entity was approved.  This means no wine removals or fermentation.  Ignoring that Cease and Desist notice could constitute a criminal offense.  If you are a small producer, take careful note: Once the transfer files enter into the Tax Auditing Division of the TTB, further review of excise tax liabilities subsequent to an “untimely filing” could result in a disqualification of the tax credit eligible to small producers.  The disqualification would be assessed retroactively for all wine previously removed from bond.  If the transfer application was filed years after the actual transfer of control, this could come with a hefty price tag.

Look Before You Leap

There are various reasons why you -the winery proprietor- may choose to reorganize your company structure.  You may be in a growth mode and seeking new capital in the form of investors.  You may be reorganizing for tax purposes or liability management.  When you find yourself examining such legal options for your business, be sure to keep in mind your obligations to disclose such changes to the TTB as well as your state licensing authority.  It could save you the headaches and costs of a sudden stop order or assessment of back taxes and penalties owed.  When in doubt, give the experts here at Compli a call.  We will help ensure that the licensing transition runs smoothly and efficiently.

AB 1649 – Watching and Waiting for Clarification on Smart Wine Making Technique

by Sheri A. Robesky

Compli Beverage Compliance

AB 1649 was introduced to legislature on January 13th, 2010 and since has passed through the State Assembly twice with flying colors.  It was read to the Senate for the first time on May 3rd, 2010.

About AB 1649:

California wineries continue to strive for improvement: making high quality wines, practicing sustainable farming and production, preaching responsible consumption practices, and marketing an unforgettable brand name.  Recent advancements in technology are refining the winemaking experience by leaps and bounds.  These advances include processes for  reducing the alcohol in high alcohol content wines.  When alcohol reduction processes are completed, a by- product is produced which is currently considered a ‘spirit of wine’. This a non-potable by-product of the wine fermentation process, but a distilled spirit none the less by CA ABC definition. CA ABC states that this by-product production merits a winery to secure an 04 Distilled Spirits license in addition to their 02 Producer license. Currently, fifty of the over 2700 licensed California wineries hold this Type 04 license, so they can legally reduce the percentage of alcohol by volume in their wines.  The licensing process is quite complex and requires a lengthy application and significant reporting on an ongoing basis.  All of this for an undrinkable product of the winemaking experience.

AB 1649 was introduced in order to change the ABC Business and Professional Code to allow winemakers to use these winemaking tools without having to obtain the distilled spirits license.

According to the bill’s sponsor, the Wine Institute, existing law authorizes a winery to produce the spirits of wine by-product, but the law is unclear whether or not the winery needs to obtain a Type 04 distilled manufacturer’s license to deal with this byproduct.  AB 1649 states a winegrower (winery) does not need to purchase a separate license when producing spirits of wine (byproduct of wine fermentation) provided the spirits of wine are blended into the wine produced by the winegrower, are sold to an industrial alcohol dealer, or are destroyed by the winegrower.

This bill is makes good business sense, further emphasizing Sacramento’s commitment to the wine industry as it relates to the California economy.

Below you will find more information regarding the specifics of AB 1649

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/analysis.html?aid=36960

HR 5034: A Wine Compliance Specialist’s View

by Taylor Maggelet

DON’T panic, DO write your representative,

DO your part to keep direct to consumer shipping safe & legal

Paso Robles, CA- With the release of House of Representatives Bill 5034 late last week, a panic of sorts has gripped many wineries and retailers (or at least the bloggers of those industries) with what appears to be another attempted power play by the influential wholesale alcohol lobbying effort in Washington, DC. And while HR 5034 may indeed pass, this winery compliance specialist strongly feels that, in the end, it will be a much more watered down version of the currently proposed bill, and will not present a sweeping change to current state laws on out of state shipping of wine.

That said the industry should not sit on its laurels in response to this latest assault on fair interstate commerce. While recent legislation in many states has overwhelmingly supported direct to consumer sales, we must be diligent in continuing to advance our cause though communication with our representatives, adherence to the various states’ laws regarding licensing and taxation, and making a commitment to ensuring safe and legal direct sales wherever possible.

This bill, sponsored by the National Beer Wholesalers Association, is designed to (1) reaffirm the 21st Amendment, in which individual states, not the federal government, have the primary authority to regulate alcoholic beverage sales, and (2) recognize that alcohol is different than other consumer products (like sheet sets or books), and its sale should be regulated effectively. I don’t think anybody in the wine industry is arguing against the validity of either of these points.  So why do we need another federal regulation emphasizing a law that is already on the books, and of which nobody is fighting against? Don’t our federal legislators have bigger issues on their plates these days? (Oh I don’t know…Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan…Healthcare…mid-term elections, for goodness sake!)

The main reason the wholesalers are pushing this bill is to keep litigation out of federal courts, where the U.S. Constitution is king, so laws regarding volume limits, production caps, and the ability of retailers to ship are decided at the state legislature. These types of state restrictions keep many large wine producers from reaching their consumers directly, thus keeping them dependant on the wholesaler to get to market. The Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America have been quoted as not wanting to overturn current state law, but simply do not want to allow challenges to those laws. But if these laws scream “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”, I have a problem with being told they are above challenge.

The Granholm decision of 2005 stated that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which enforces the equal treatment of all businesses regarding trade) takes precedence over the 21st Amendment (which allows states to regulate their own alcohol sales). HR 5034 is attempting to switch that around, whereby the 21st trumps the Commerce Clause. States could legally discriminate against out of state wineries, even ban out of state shipping, and that ban could be upheld, when challenged, if the state can show, in even a slight way, that the ban will contribute positively to the “promotion of temperance, the establishment or maintenance of orderly alcoholic beverage markets, the collection of alcoholic beverage taxes, the structure of the state alcoholic beverage distribution system, or the restriction of access to alcoholic beverages by those under the legal drinking age.” It puts the burden of proof on the plaintiffs (the wineries or retailers), on some incredibly debatable, subjective issues.

It is very important that wineries and wine retailers make every effort to abide by the current laws set forth by the individual states, securing the necessary licenses, remitting sales/use and/or excise tax, and reporting in a timely fashion. The days of “no strings attached” reciprocal shipping are gone and wineries need to play by the rules of each state to which they choose to sell and ship. Excellent services and software tools exist to assist even the smallest winery or retailer in this compliance process (I admit, our only plug!). Furthermore, any business selling wine direct to consumer needs to make a concerted effort to ensure their wine is being sold to legal adults. Use of age verification software, age verification gateways on websites, and clearly labeling all shipped boxes as alcohol, coupled with compliant shipping and accurate tax payments, will go a long way to proving that the current system is in fact promoting “temperance, the establishment or maintenance of orderly alcoholic beverage markets, the collection of alcoholic beverage taxes, the structure of the state alcoholic beverage distribution system, or the restriction of access to alcoholic beverages by those under the legal drinking age.”

The bottom line is that 37 states, plus the District of Columbia, already have tried and true laws on the books allowing direct to consumer shipping to varying degrees. If this bill does pass into law, odds are that these established DTC laws will not change or be challenged. States where direct shipping legislation is pending, like New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland, may decide not to allow DTC shipping after all. In the few states that still don’t have a direct shipping law on the books, like Florida, we might see direct shipping banned under this proposed law. Unfortunately, wine retailers stand to lose the most, with only a handful of states currently allowing direct shipping, many states may choose not to extend that privilege to retailers if this bill successfully passes.

Ours is a progressive, socially responsible and organized industry that can present a united front to the legislature regarding non-discriminatory interstate trade and the responsible direct sale of wine to Americans in every state.

So what can be done? It is not too late to voice your opinion to your representative. Please call or email them today: http://www.capwiz.com/freegrapes/issues/alert/?alertid=14948676

Latest E-Mail Scam Targets Local Wineries

By Lea Fainer

Reports have been coming into Compli involving a scam that you should avoid. An email is sent from the scammer requesting to purchase wine for an upcoming party or wedding event. It is purchased with a stolen credit card number.  The scammer lives outside of the US, and so he or she gives the winery the name and email address of a wine shipper that they are “registered with” and have used successfully in the past.

If the winery contacts the wine shipping company, the wine shipping company will acknowledge the request and ask for details on the quantity and types of wine. Subsequently the shipping company states that it is unable to run credit cards and requests that the winery wire thousands of dollars to prepay for the shipping. You see where this is going…

Don’t do it. Enough said.

Tips on how to detect this scam:

-Faulty grammar and punctuation

-The name of the “shipping company” changes slightly throughout the email

-The “shipping company” cannot be located in an online search

-The initial email from the “prospective buyer” may not specify a specific a type or vintage of wine, and include a general comment like, “I love the taste”.

California Shared Tasting Room Update

By Sheri A. Robesky

A California ABC representative at the San Luis Obispo ABC office confirmed yesterday that they will no longer require joint tasting rooms to delineate space for each licensee at the tasting bar.  Thanks to the California ABC, this change will relieve many California joint tasting rooms stress and concern over trying to keep their wines in a 5×5 space at the bar!  It will also make the customers experience much more pleasurable by allowing them the freedom to walk the room, browse around, and enjoy your wines from anywhere at the bar.

Currently the ABC’s conditions for a joint tasting room license state:

1.         Any violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act occurring in the joint tasting room constituting grounds for suspension or revocation of a license shall be deemed to be the act and responsibility of all petitioners therein.

2.         Alcoholic beverages shall be dispensed only from an area exclusive to petitioner.

The second condition has been reevaluated due to clarification of the first condition.  Condition 1. above states, that any violations occurring in the joint tasting room will be the responsibility of all petitioners therein, which means, regardless of where your  ‘space’ is in the tasting room, if one licensee violates the law you are all violated equally.

Most importantly make sure all licensed parties are abiding by joint tasting room laws; you must continue to maintain separate records of all retail sales, and they must be available at the tasting room for inspection during business hours.  And lastly, please remember, if one licensee violates the ABC Act and is violated, all parties licensed at that premise will be held responsible.

For more information please contact your local California ABC department.

California Licensing Fee Increase

California Fee IncreaseBy Sheri A. Robesky

The CA ABC has increased its fees for 2010!  These fees will affect licensees looking to apply for winery licenses, tasting rooms, and wholesale businesses.  Other licenses that you can look forward to paying more for include, tasting rooms, offices, and import licenses.  You will find a copy of the 2010 CA ABC fee schedule at http://www.abc.ca.gov/permits/2010FeeSch.pdf.

Examining Fee Hikes in Maryland, Illinois and Connecticut

Changes to Alcohol Beverage Laws October 2009In recent months several states have increased their rates for alcoholic beverage permits, liquor taxes, and brand registrations. Maryland recently doubled their fee for original and renewed Non-Resident Dealer permits. Illinois increased liquor taxes at various rates dependent upon the alcohol content of the beverage. And Connecticut doubled their brand registration fees, increased their winery permit fees by $65, and beer and spirits wholesalers license fees have increased by twenty five percent.

The increase for Illinois that went into effect on September 1 is expected to bring in over $100 million dollars for infrastructure improvements such as building schools, improving roads, and maintaining bridges throughout the state. The highest increase is for hard liquor which went from $4.50 per gallon to $8.55 per gallon giving Illinois the dubious distinction of the state with the highest hard liquor taxes in the nation. Any distilleries with products over twenty percent alcohol content will have to pay the additional fees. Wineries, fortunately, will not be impacted by the over-four-dollar increase for alcoholic beverages with over twenty percent alcohol content. They will, however, have to pay an additional $.66 per gallon for beverages with an alcohol content between seven and twenty percent and about $.05 per gallon more for beverages with an alcohol content less than seven percent.

Unlike the increased taxes in Illinois, the recent fee hike in Connecticut affects all alcoholic beverage vendors. Legislators have increased over 550 state-mandated fees in an attempt to lower Connecticut’s deficit. All fees associated with the alcohol industry are included in this group. According to the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection website, fees that were previously $1,000 or more will be increased to $1,250, fees that were more than $150 but less than $1,000 will increase by twenty five percent and rounded to the dollar increment, and fees that were less than $150 will be doubled.

Any winery, brewery, or distillery that wishes to register products or obtain/renew a license in Connecticut will be affected. Brand registration fees have increased from $100 per label to $200 per label. Connecticut also requires each label to have a UNIMERC code , which incurs an extra cost of $30. Each product will cost $230 after the UNIMERC fee and the state fee. Winery permit fees have increased from $250 to $315 and beer and spirit wholesaler’s license fees have increased from $1,000 to $1,250. These increases will be in effect until June 30, 2011 and all permits and brand registrations are good for three years. However, we will not be surprised if the fee increase becomes permanent at a later date. We will keep you posted!

For quick references to all alcoholic beverage compliance based news, see the news feed on the main page of the Compli website.

Governor Schwarzenegger Signs AB1470

Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB1470 into law today.  This legislation allows wineries with duplicate 02 licenses for offsite tasting rooms to sell wine by the glass or bottle for consumption onsite.  AB 2004 which went into effect in January of this year extended the same privileges to wineries with onsite tasting rooms only. No additional licenses or approvals from ABC are needed and the legislation is effective on January 1, 2010.

TTB and Alternating Proprietors

Last month there was a lot of discussion inside TTB and in the beverage compliance community about TTB’s interpretation of Industry Circular 2008-4 regarding alternating proprietors (AP’s).  The controversy was over whether the host winery’s employees could provide winemaking and other services to alternating proprietors without compromising the independence of the AP.  TTB officials and beverage industry representatives met at the TTB Expo on June 25 to discuss whether the use of the host’s employees by the AP signified a lack of independence on the part of the AP which would make that individual or entity ineligible for a Federal Basic Permit as a producer of wine.Wine Awaiting Its Time

We expected to get some written guidance from TTB after this meeting regarding how these services can be provided by the host and be included in the legal agreement between the host and AP.   Guidance never came and TTB has since approved several applicants with AP Agreements that include the description of services provided by the employees of the host. These applications were being held pending a resolution of the matter before the meeting.

In the end, the details of the agreement are not really the issue.  What matters is whether the AP can show control and authority in the winemaking process.  If control is not evident, then the AP could be forced into a custom crush arrangement with wholesale licenses. This would result in the loss of the Domestic Small Producer Tax Credit, the privilege of having a tasting room and access to many consumer markets.

 
Enter Your Name
Enter Your Email