(IMBIBE+BLOG)

At Strike & Techel, we don’t just write legal briefs. Check out our blog about the ins and outs of alcohol beverage law.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.

Category archives for “laws and regulations governing alcoholic beverages”

UPDATE: New Jersey Senate Passes Direct Shipping Bill

December 19th, 2011

Updating our post of late last week, the New Jersey Senate last Thursday voted 23 to 13 in favor of Bill S-3172, permitting wineries to ship directly to New Jersey consumers. Now that it has passed the Senate, the New Jersey Assembly has to vote on the bill by January 9, 2012, the last day of the legislative session. Under the bill, New Jersey Farm Wineries, New Jersey Plenary Wineries that produce 250,000 gallons or less of wine a year, and out-of-state wineries that produce 250,000 gallons of wine or less each year and that obtain an out-of-state shipping license would be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine per year to any New Jersey consumer. If passed, New Jersey would become the 39^th state to allow direct shipping. Check back in early 2012 for an update!

TTB Bonded Wine Premises Audits

July 29th, 2011

Nobody hopes for an audit, but like cold cloudy summers in San Francisco, they’re bound to happen. Ideally, if you’re selected for an audit by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”), you will have already been following the federal requirements. To aid in compliance, last March the TTB issued a tutorial about the common issues found during TTB audits, which is available here. As the ramp up to harvest begins, this is a good resource to circle back with to ensure compliance. Within the tutorial the TTB listed the most common compliance issues by area, and within that by frequency of occurrence. Further, they provided helpful tips on how to avoid problems in those areas. The issues most frequently seen by the TTB’s Tax Audit Division are:

Records:

General record keeping;

Transfer in bond record;

Tax paid removal records; and

Export documentations.

Inventory:

Inventory timing, records and signature;

Inventory losses and loss limits; and

Records of bottled or packed wine.

Reporting and Tax Payment:

Timely filing the Report of Wine Premises Operations and correctly completing the form;

Calculating and paying tax on wine;

Filing claims for wine or spirits lost or destroyed while in bond;

Tax payment and filing TTB F5000.24 Excise Tax Returns; and

Signature authority.

Basic Permit, Registration and Bond:

Filing amended applications to report changes; and

Maintaining adequate bond coverage.

If you would like assistance with a TTB audit or help with TTB compliance matters, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

Spirits Tastings Approved In Tennessee

June 27th, 2011

Earlier this month, Tennessee became the 35th state to allow spirits tastings, with the passage of Senate Bill 1224, which will permit restaurants, bars, and liquor stores to offer limited alcohol sampling. The bill, which was signed into law on June 10thand is codified at Tennessee Code Annotated Section 57-3-404(h)(2), will allow spirits retailers to conduct tastings for “sales, education, and promotional purposes.” Similar to tasting laws in most other states, spirits wholesalers may not take part in the events, and are specifically precluded from directly or indirectly providing any “products, funding, labor, support or reimbursements to a retailer.” The Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission will be establishing rules specifying how tastings must be conducted.

Tennessee is among a growing list of states that have authorized limited tastings since 2009, joining California, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Federal Legislative Update

March 22nd, 2011

In the past few weeks there has been a significant amount of new legislation relating to the alcoholic beverage industry introduced on both the state and federal level. The increased legislative efforts are interesting in light of the fact that in March 1933, 78-years ago, the end of Prohibition was kicked off when Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to pass “The Beer Act,” which was eventually passed on April 7, 1933. The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified nearly eight months later on December 5, 1933. A re-cap of the two most high-profile pieces of federal proposed legislation is below. Later this week we’ll take a look at key pieces of state proposed legislation.

S. 534 – The Brewer’s Employment and Excise Tax Relief Act of 2011, or BEER Act as it is popular referred to, was introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) on March 9, 2011. As of today, the Bill has twenty-three cosponsors. The bipartisan bill would reduce the excise tax paid by small brewers from $7.00 to $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels produced each year. Small breweries would then pay $16 per barrel for production above 60,000 and up to two million barrels. Currently, all brewers regardless of size pay $18 per barrel for all production above 60,000 barrels. The Bill would also revise the current definition of “small breweries” from those that produce less than two million barrels per year to those that produce less than six million.

H.R. 1161– Just over a week after S. 534 was introduced, the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2011 was introduced by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on March 17, 2011. As of today, the Bill has eight cosponsors. The Bill is a re-introduction of H.R. 5034, which was hotly contested last year and eventually abandoned. The Bill, depending on which of the three-tiers one is standing in or closest to, is either about protecting states’ rights to regulate alcohol or about allowing Commerce Clause violations to protect alcohol distributor’s interests. As 2011 progresses we are sure to see the heated debate unfold once again.

Winery Licensing in California

March 3rd, 2011

The typical license for a winery in California is a Type 02 Winegrower license, but many businesses interested more in marketing wine, or having wine custom crushed to their specifications, instead of actually producing the wine on a bonded wine premises, obtain a combination Type 17/20 license instead. The Type 17 license is a wine and beer wholesaler license, and the type 20 is a retail license for the sale of wine and beer for consumption off the licensed premises. When the licenses are held together, they allow the sale to retailers and consumers of wine only. The combination license does not allow the holder to produce wine. Significantly, California law was changed in 2009 to permit these 17/20 license holders (sometimes called “virtual wineries”) to donate their wines to non-profit organizations. This privilege, previously reserved to licensed producers and importers, enables virtual wineries to participate in wine tastings and other events held by non-profit organizations. The 17/20 license structure and abundance of wineries that do custom crush production in California have made it relatively easy for virtual wineries to succeed and, as a result, we have seen tremendous increases in the 17/20 license model over the last several years.

Still No Certiorari Decision from the Supreme Court on Wine Country Gift Baskets.com Case

February 28th, 2011

The pins and needles many in the alcoholic beverage industry were on this morning remain, as the Supreme Court’s orders list issued this morningwas silent on the certiorari decision for Wine Country Gift Baskets.com, et.al., v. John T. Steen, Jr., et.al.Cases are typically distributed among the Supreme Court Justices on Fridays for their conferences, during which they discuss whether or not to grant certiorari. Orders are then typically issued the following Monday. If a case that goes to conference on a Friday is not among the order list published on the following Monday, it usually means the case is being discussed among the Justices, with a few but not a majority, arguing for the grant of certiorari. However, once a case has gone to conference more than once without a subsequent order being issued, it tends to mean that the votes for the certiorari grant are not and will not be there. This is now the second time Wine County Gift Baskets.com, et.al., v. John T. Steen, Jr., et.al. has gone to conference (first on February 18, 2011 and second on February 25, 2011) and not been included in the following Monday’s orders. Thus, it is unlikely that the case will be granted certiorari, although not impossible. If the case is denied certiorari, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will stand. For a summary of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, see our prior post here.

Have Wine, Will Travel

February 25th, 2011

It is called everything from the bombastic “corkage” to the everyperson “BYOB,” but it means the same across all fifty states and beyond: bringing ones own bottle of alcohol to a restaurant for consumption with ones meal. Not every state allows the practice, but Virginia is on the brink of joining the list of states where brown-bagging is permissible. On February 8^th, the Virginia Senate passed SB 1292 (27-Y, 13-N) and the bill passed the House on February 22^nd (78-Y, 18-N), leaving only Governor Robert McDonnell’s signature to make it official. The bill was introduced by Republican state Senator Jeffrey McWaters, who argued passage of SB 1292 would help boost Virginia’s restaurant and wine industries. SB 1292 will add Section 16 to § 4.1-201(A) of the Code of Virginia, thereby allowing licensed restaurants to permit customers to consume legally acquired wine on a restaurant premises and allowing the restaurant to charge a corkage fee if desired.

Each state that allows BYOB has its own unique set of regulations. Virginia’s neighbor to the South, North Carolina, has a “brown-bagging” permit, which allows customers in permitted establishments to bring and consume on the premises “up to eight liters of fortified wine or spirituous liquor, or eight liters of the two combined.” Restaurants, hotels and community theaters are only allowed such permits if they are located in a county where the sale of mixed beverages has not been approved. Eight liters of fortified wine, which in North Carolina is defined as 16-24% alcohol by volume, or distilled spirits, may seem like an exorbitant amount of alcohol. However, unlike Virginia’s SB 1292, North Carolina’s law is not about enjoying a glass of ones own wine with dinner, but rather about consuming a gin and tonic at ones local haunt when such establishment is not allowed by law to sell gin. Attending “liquor locker” provisions in North Carolina allow patrons to store their brown-bagged alcohol in individual lockers at licensed facilities, so that they can drain their provisions over time. Traditional bottle opening fees do not apply in such situations, rather the restaurant makes money selling the mixer used by the patron, commonly referred to as a “set-up.”

The North Carolina arrangement would be defined as an illegal “bottle club” in California. California only allows people to bring their own alcohol to a licensed premises, and one can only bring alcohol that could have been sold by the licensee at the establishment. So if a restaurant only sells beer and wine, one cannot bring in vodka. Also, in California any unfinished portion of the BYOB must be left at the restaurant, so if you bring a bottle of expensive wine to a restaurant, bring enough friends to drink it all!

As we head into the weekend, we’ll leave you to ponder these burning questions: Is it counterintuitive for California to forbid people from bringing wine to restaurants that do not serve it, but permit patrons to bring wine to restaurants with the exact same bottle available for sale on their wine list? Also, who pays more in BYOB alcohol costs—North Carolina patrons bringing in eight liters of distilled spirits or New York patrons (blind item) dining at a well known restaurant with a $90 corkage fee?

Fanciful Names and the TTB

February 23rd, 2011

We get lots of questions on the topic of “fanciful names” in the context of certificate of label approvals (COLAs) through the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB). The TTB recently posted a helpful clarification, which we wanted to pass along:

Fanciful Name. Have you ever wondered what information should be entered into the “fanciful name” field on the COLA application? A fanciful name is a term used in addition to the brand name for the purposes of further identifying a product. A fanciful name is mandatory for any malt beverage product that is not known to the trade under a particular designation (27 CFR 7.24(a)) or distilled spirits products that do not meet the standards of identity or does not conform to trade and consumer understanding (27 CFR 5.34(a)). The use of a fanciful name on a flavored wine product or any wine product that meets a standard of identity is not required. Please note that if a fanciful name is used on a flavored wine product, it must appear in direct conjunction with a truthful and adequate statement of composition. (27 CFR 4.34(a))

In other words, if your distilled spirits or beer product does not fall within one of the specifically defined classifications, e.g., whiskey, gin, rum, tequila, beer, lager, ale, porter, stout, etc., then it must be labeled with a “truthful and adequate statement of composition” and a fanciful name in addition to the brand name. This generally occurs when a product starts as a distilled spirit or malt beverage product, but then additional flavorings or ingredients are added and those additional items are not permitted within the standard defined classifications. In the case of wine, the fanciful name is optional. Brand names and fanciful names cannot contain the name of a class or type of alcohol, so “vodka” or “whiskey” cannot serve as a fanciful name.

When a fanciful name is mandatory, it is important to plan ahead when creating a new product name and label. We have seen products identified by a single brand name that could not obtain a label approval because they were required to also have a fanciful name. Applicants in that situation are required to add a new name to be used as a fanciful name and revise their labels so that it is included. An example of a properly identified distilled spirits product is “ABC Brand, Peachy Passion, neutral spirits with added fruit juice and natural flavorings.” It uses a brand name, a fanciful name, and a statement of composition, as required under the labeling regulations. For most products, fanciful names are not required but it’s important to consider how TTB will classify your product before you create your labels and brand identity.

Vertical Integration in California (“Tied-House” Laws)

February 17th, 2011

The general rule with alcoholic beverage licensing is that you cannot be involved in more than one “tier” of the industry, meaning that suppliers and importers can’t be wholesalers, wholesalers can’t be retailers, retailers can’t be suppliers, and vice versa. The objective, which came about following the repeal of prohibition, was to promote the organized and responsible distribution of alcohol. It was thought that by keeping the three tiers separate, suppliers would not exert undue influence over retailers, consumers would not be encouraged to over consume, and the societal ills that led to prohibition in the first place would not be repeated. In the 75+ years since the creation of the three-tier system, dozens of exceptions have found their way into the California ABC Act. The tiers are no longer entirely separate and some licensees are permitted to hold licenses in other tiers. For example:

12/18 (Distilled Spirits Importer)/(Distilled Spirits Wholesaler)

17/20 (Wine and Beer Wholesaler)/(Wine and Beer Retailer)

9/17/20 (Wine and Beer Importer)/ (Wine and Beer Wholesaler)/(Wine and Beer Retailer)

There are restrictions on operating under each of these combinations, but the ability to hold them in combination remains a privilege available in California that is not available in many other states. The “tied-house” rules have implications that extend well beyond the licensing structure. If you are interested in learning more about tied-house issues, feel free to contact any of the attorneys here at Strike & Techel.

TTB Considers New Grape Varieties for American Wines

February 10th, 2011

Only a grape variety name approved by the TTB may be used as a varietal “type” designation for American wine. The TTB is considering adding more than 50 names to their list of approved varietals to catch up with the explosion of U.S. wines made from obscure grape varietals. The full list of varietals up for public comments is here.

Some of the proposed varietals are not so obscure (e.g. Blaufränkisch, Carignan, Garnacha, Grenache blanc, Grüner Veltliner, Lagrein, Vermentino), but others are extremely unusual, particularly the submissions from the Minnesota Grape Growers (Louise Swenson, Sabrevois, St. Pepin), which highlighted the cold-weather resiliency of the grapes

(IMBIBE+BLOG)

Subscribe to our RSS feed:

Browse posts by category:

Category archives for “laws and regulations governing alcoholic beverages”