Supreme Court, and wine.

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Message
Author
Jayson Cohen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2286
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#151 Post by Jayson Cohen » June 28th, 2019, 5:31 pm

crickey wrote:
June 28th, 2019, 9:18 am
I haven't shopped at many Total Wine stores, but based on the three in my area I have been to, Binny's has a much more interesting wine selection.
This. Except for Bordeaux, Total isn’t even close to Binny’s. I always like to go when I’m in Chicago. (Used to be I would try to go to Sam’s.)

User avatar
jordan whitehead
Posts: 4516
Joined: February 12th, 2009, 4:59 pm
Location: Northbrook, IL

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#152 Post by jordan whitehead » July 15th, 2019, 12:29 pm

just got hit with a bill now collecting sales tax based on state of the retailer as opposed to the state being shipped to
www.annaswish.org

crickey
Posts: 516
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#153 Post by crickey » July 15th, 2019, 1:55 pm

jordan whitehead wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 12:29 pm
just got hit with a bill now collecting sales tax based on state of the retailer as opposed to the state being shipped to
A bunch of those. Pretty much every NY retailer has moved that way. Flickinger started doing that a few months ago. And not just Illinois, but also the full Chicago/Cook county tax. 10.5% added a lot to the cost.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

Dennis Borczon
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 684
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#154 Post by Dennis Borczon » July 15th, 2019, 2:52 pm

The golden age is over. No more untaxed wine in the future shipped to your door. It is only fair that open competition should make up for the tax collection concerns.

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 20724
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#155 Post by Alan Rath » July 15th, 2019, 3:22 pm

Yeah, on one hand, the no sales tax days were nice while they lasted (notwithstanding that we're all supposed to declare sales taxes we didn't pay on our state returns). But it never made sense, essentially cannibalizing the taxes that pay for the services we all want (again, notwithstanding that some of us complain about misuse of taxes).
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 37086
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#156 Post by Neal.Mollen » July 15th, 2019, 4:05 pm

Alan Rath wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 3:22 pm
Yeah, on one hand, the no sales tax days were nice while they lasted (notwithstanding that we're all supposed to declare sales taxes we didn't pay on our state returns). But it never made sense, essentially cannibalizing the taxes that pay for the services we all want (again, notwithstanding that some of us complain about misuse of taxes).
Agreed. I'm not kicking about having to pay taxes (once!). Also, this should make shipping across state lines much easier with time
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 20724
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#157 Post by Alan Rath » July 15th, 2019, 4:43 pm

How does it work from states that have smaller, or no sales tax? In theory, you might think those states will have some small competitive advantage. Will we see retailers in low/no sales tax states ramping up internet sales efforts?
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
CJ Beazley
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 27704
Joined: December 3rd, 2011, 6:33 am
Location: Ovilla\Midlothian Texas

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#158 Post by CJ Beazley » July 15th, 2019, 5:22 pm

Dennis Borczon wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 2:52 pm
The golden age is over. No more untaxed wine in the future shipped to your door. It is only fair that open competition should make up for the tax collection concerns.
Lemme know when all this ‘open competition’ starts here in Texas.
It's C(raig)

User avatar
Jim Anderson
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 6443
Joined: October 20th, 2010, 1:18 pm
Location: Portland/Newberg, Oregon

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#159 Post by Jim Anderson » July 15th, 2019, 7:11 pm

Alan Rath wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 4:43 pm
How does it work from states that have smaller, or no sales tax? In theory, you might think those states will have some small competitive advantage. Will we see retailers in low/no sales tax states ramping up internet sales efforts?
As a winery that’s as compliant as can be I know that we have to, if we are shipping to you, charge you the tax of the state you live in. Before we began toeing the line we stated that all sales were declared to have occurred in and property was taken possession of in Oregon. Can’t get licensing if you go that route unfortunately, especially since we have no sales tax here in Oregon.

So, if you’re going to be buying some expensive jewelry or clothing or such items, come to Oregon and save on the sales tax you would have spent buying those elsewhere and invest that money in a nice wine vacation and have some stuff shipped back to you. The sales tax will be way less than on some multi-karat jewels and boxes of Hermès (coming soon)!
Co-owner, Patricia Green Cellars

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 37086
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#160 Post by Neal.Mollen » July 16th, 2019, 4:12 am

As long as I only pay sales tax in one state! I am waiting for the situation in which both the shipping and receiving states claim the right to tax.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Victor Hong
Posts: 17408
Joined: May 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#161 Post by Victor Hong » July 16th, 2019, 4:33 am

Neal.Mollen wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 4:12 am
As long as I only pay sales tax in one state! I am waiting for the situation in which both the shipping and receiving states claim the right to tax.
Nothing to stop both from taxing.
WineHunter.

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 37086
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#162 Post by Neal.Mollen » July 16th, 2019, 5:02 am

Victor Hong wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 4:33 am
Neal.Mollen wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 4:12 am
As long as I only pay sales tax in one state! I am waiting for the situation in which both the shipping and receiving states claim the right to tax.
Nothing to stop both from taxing.
I don't claim to be an expert in the field but I know of nothing.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Jim Anderson
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 6443
Joined: October 20th, 2010, 1:18 pm
Location: Portland/Newberg, Oregon

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#163 Post by Jim Anderson » July 16th, 2019, 5:50 am

Neal.Mollen wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 4:12 am
As long as I only pay sales tax in one state! I am waiting for the situation in which both the shipping and receiving states claim the right to tax.
Well, get it all shipped from Oregon then because we don’t have a sales tax and, given the historical record on attempting to implement one here,
I imagine we never will have one.
Co-owner, Patricia Green Cellars

User avatar
Al Osterheld
Posts: 6292
Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
Location: SF Bay

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#164 Post by Al Osterheld » July 16th, 2019, 6:20 am

In California the law until recently was that you needed to report and pay use tax for out of state purchases that did not collect California sales tax, but you received a credit for any sales tax paid to another state (not to exceed the CA use tax).

Now, out of state sellers are required to collect and remit CA sales tax if they have more than $100,000 in CA sales and at least 200 separate transactions.

-Al

Nathan V.
Posts: 1768
Joined: November 9th, 2009, 11:47 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#165 Post by Nathan V. » July 16th, 2019, 6:32 am

Jim Anderson wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 7:11 pm
Alan Rath wrote:
July 15th, 2019, 4:43 pm
How does it work from states that have smaller, or no sales tax? In theory, you might think those states will have some small competitive advantage. Will we see retailers in low/no sales tax states ramping up internet sales efforts?
As a winery that’s as compliant as can be I know that we have to, if we are shipping to you, charge you the tax of the state you live in. Before we began toeing the line we stated that all sales were declared to have occurred in and property was taken possession of in Oregon. Can’t get licensing if you go that route unfortunately, especially since we have no sales tax here in Oregon.

So, if you’re going to be buying some expensive jewelry or clothing or such items, come to Oregon and save on the sales tax you would have spent buying those elsewhere and invest that money in a nice wine vacation and have some stuff shipped back to you. The sales tax will be way less than on some multi-karat jewels and boxes of Hermès (coming soon)!
My idea of compliance was that tax is collected for the state where the purchaser is located, not sure whether that is by shipping address for the goods or billing address. Isn't that the way Amazon did it? What we want is for states to allow shipping in and the reason they don't want to is because they're not getting the sales tax.

It seems like to me that this would push small stores who don't have the bandwidth for compliance out of the shipping market. Large retailers will still be able to ship, so I expect that there will be two markets. That could create good opportunities for those who have a good relationship with a retailer that isn't in the shipping game as I imagine that that could lead to "deals" on scarce items that will be priced to market from large shipping-able retailers (things like Fourrier, etc.).
ITB-ish.
V = V a n der g r i f t

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 37086
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#166 Post by Neal.Mollen » July 16th, 2019, 7:16 am

Al Osterheld wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 6:20 am
In California the law until recently was that you needed to report and pay use tax for out of state purchases that did not collect California sales tax, but you received a credit for any sales tax paid to another state (not to exceed the CA use tax).

Now, out of state sellers are required to collect and remit CA sales tax if they have more than $100,000 in CA sales and at least 200 separate transactions.

-Al
That has been common, but as was suggested by the Trump tax bill, the credit one state gives for taxes paid in another state or that the federal government gives for state taxes paid appears to be more of an accommodation than a legal requirement. Again, not an expert; ask someone who is.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 20724
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#167 Post by Alan Rath » July 16th, 2019, 8:07 am

So, if NY collects sales tax on an order, does that tax get sent to California?
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Al Osterheld
Posts: 6292
Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
Location: SF Bay

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#168 Post by Al Osterheld » July 16th, 2019, 8:37 am

As mentioned, California recently passed a law that require NY retailers (not the state) to register with CA, collect and remit CA sales tax on tangible goods sold for shipment to CA if they have at least $100,000 in sales in CA or 200 separate transactions in CA. What NY require of the NY retailer is a separate question.

As far as the credit CA gives for out of state sales tax paid to another state, the credit is part of the instructions for the CA use tax worksheet. I haven't looked up the actual CA regulations.

-Al

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 20724
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#169 Post by Alan Rath » July 16th, 2019, 9:10 am

I ask because I can't make sense of the tax rates being charge by out of state retailers. Zachys, for example, charges 8.375%, which isn't their tax rate, and isn't our tax rate.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

mmarcellus
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 840
Joined: January 1st, 2010, 3:51 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#170 Post by mmarcellus » July 16th, 2019, 11:03 am

Alan Rath wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 9:10 am
I ask because I can't make sense of the tax rates being charge by out of state retailers. Zachys, for example, charges 8.375%, which isn't their tax rate, and isn't our tax rate.
8.375% is indeed the White Plains sales tax rate.
M @ r k

User avatar
Alan Rath
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 20724
Joined: April 24th, 2009, 12:45 am
Location: Bay Area, CA. Sometimes out to lunch.

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#171 Post by Alan Rath » July 16th, 2019, 11:19 am

OK, thanks. Google said something different.
I'm just one lost soul, swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3728
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#172 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » July 22nd, 2019, 1:30 pm

Just got hit with sales tax on an order from JJB. First time...
[swearing.gif]

User avatar
Al Osterheld
Posts: 6292
Joined: March 15th, 2009, 5:47 am
Location: SF Bay

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#173 Post by Al Osterheld » July 22nd, 2019, 1:47 pm

Sales tax for which state, ie, CA or your state?

-Al

crickey
Posts: 516
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#174 Post by crickey » July 22nd, 2019, 2:05 pm

mmarcellus wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 11:03 am
Alan Rath wrote:
July 16th, 2019, 9:10 am
I ask because I can't make sense of the tax rates being charge by out of state retailers. Zachys, for example, charges 8.375%, which isn't their tax rate, and isn't our tax rate.
8.375% is indeed the White Plains sales tax rate.
I searched Scarsdale, which is lower, but I notice that their corporate office is located in White Plains, so that probably explains the WP sales tax rate.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3728
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#175 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » July 22nd, 2019, 2:05 pm

[scratch.gif] Not sure. It’s a rate I don’t recognize - 8.17%. Texas sales tax is 8.25%, where I live.

Mike Evans
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3298
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#176 Post by Mike Evans » April 26th, 2020, 9:26 am

The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that Michigan can prohibit direct shipping by out-of-state retailers while allowing it by in-state retailers. The opinion can be found at https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio ... 19p-06.pdf.
Last edited by Mike Evans on April 26th, 2020, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mark Golodetz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 6908
Joined: May 29th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#177 Post by Mark Golodetz » April 26th, 2020, 10:37 am

Mike Evans wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 9:26 am
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that Michigan can prohibit direct shipping by out-of-state retailers while allowing it by in-state retailers. The opinion can be found at https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio ... 0a0119p-06.
It has been removed
ITB

Mike Evans
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3298
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#178 Post by Mike Evans » April 26th, 2020, 10:39 am

Mark Golodetz wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 10:37 am
Mike Evans wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 9:26 am
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that Michigan can prohibit direct shipping by out-of-state retailers while allowing it by in-state retailers. The opinion can be found at https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio ... 19p-06.pdf.
It has been removed
Thanks, I’ve corrected the link so it should work now.

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 36324
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#179 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » April 26th, 2020, 12:16 pm

Mike Evans wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 9:26 am
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that Michigan can prohibit direct shipping by out-of-state retailers while allowing it by in-state retailers. The opinion can be found at https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio ... 19p-06.pdf.
Paging the dormant commerce clause...dormant commerce clause please come to line 1.
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Adam Frisch
BerserkerBusiness
BerserkerBusiness
Posts: 663
Joined: July 15th, 2019, 5:04 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#180 Post by Adam Frisch » April 26th, 2020, 3:07 pm

Well, the tax rate for the states are one thing, but then depending on which county the buyer lives in there's often an extra tax there. As an example, here's from my tax compliance person in regards to Texas:

Texas is a bit more all over with the city, county and special rates so most of our clients just go with an average of 8%. The base rate is 6.25% with cities adding an additional 1% and counties and special areas adding 0.25%-0.50% depending on how many they fall into. Looking at the three cities you shipped to though they all fall into the 8.25% so if you are not going to have a lot at first you could just use that rate.

So as a shipper/seller, it's impossible to cover yourself for each county, so many just add an average tax.

Compliance here in the states is a nightmare. I don't know how it got this bad.
Sabelli-Frisch Wines

Owner, proprietor and winemaker (with a little help) at Sabelli-Frisch Wines. I make wine from low-impact vineyards, focus on rare, forgotten, under-appreciated or historic grape varietals. Mission grape is my main red focus. IG: sabellifrisch

User avatar
Marc Hauser
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 566
Joined: March 11th, 2011, 7:37 pm
Location: Napa

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#181 Post by Marc Hauser » April 26th, 2020, 3:35 pm

Adam Frisch wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 3:07 pm
...
Compliance here in the states is a nightmare. I don't know how it got this bad.
It has always been bad.
ITB-ish (unfrozen caveman cannabis lawyer and erstwhile wine lawyer)

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3728
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#182 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » June 30th, 2020, 10:19 am

What's the latest on this? Frustrated as hell...found a wine I wanted at Calvert Woodley in DC, and they won't even entertain third party shipping to Texas. I demand my rights!
[soap.gif]

crickey
Posts: 516
Joined: August 3rd, 2009, 2:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#183 Post by crickey » June 30th, 2020, 1:39 pm

Mike Evans wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 10:39 am
Mark Golodetz wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 10:37 am
Mike Evans wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 9:26 am
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that Michigan can prohibit direct shipping by out-of-state retailers while allowing it by in-state retailers. The opinion can be found at https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinio ... 19p-06.pdf.
It has been removed
Thanks, I’ve corrected the link so it should work now.
I just saw this link and read the opinion. What was interesting was that the 6th Circuit read Tennessee Wine & Spirits as consistent with prior 21st Amendment cases. I suppose they had to, but for the issue before them, it was consistent with prior case law because Tennessee did not overturn licensing requirements and in the Michigan case, the issue was a retailer trying to sell into Michigan without a Michigan liquor license.

The problem with Tennessee Wine & Spirits was that it both affirmed and denied the restrictions of the 21st Amendment. It picked an example of a facially discriminatory statute and then proceeded to demonstrate the obvious, that facially discriminatory statutes aren't justifiable on health and welfare grounds. At the same time, it said that the 21st Amendment required greater deference to the state to justify such health and welfare grounds without establishing any guidance for lower courts to figure out where to draw boundaries.

The harder case is going to be when that same Indiana retailer applies for a license in Michigan and is denied because Michigan requires a physical presence in the state. The harder case is going to be when an out-of-state (but licensed) retailer sells a product in a state that was obtained from a wholesaler not licensed in that state, thus undermining the three-tier system. Both of those requirements were noted by the 6th Circuit as protected by the 21st Amendment, albeit as dicta. Are these really consistent with Tennessee Wine & Spirits?

All we know for sure is that there is a lot more litigation ahead.
Chri$ Ri¢k€y

User avatar
D@vid Bu3ker
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 36324
Joined: February 14th, 2009, 8:06 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#184 Post by D@vid Bu3ker » June 30th, 2020, 1:58 pm

Sc0tt F!tzger@ld wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 10:19 am
What's the latest on this? Frustrated as hell...found a wine I wanted at Calvert Woodley in DC, and they won't even entertain third party shipping to Texas. I demand my rights!
[soap.gif]
Tell them you want to ship it to a private, religious school.

(recent SCOTUS case humor...)
David Bueker - Rieslingfan

User avatar
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 3728
Joined: March 12th, 2013, 7:32 am

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#185 Post by Sc0tt F!tzger@ld » June 30th, 2020, 2:08 pm

D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 1:58 pm
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 10:19 am
What's the latest on this? Frustrated as hell...found a wine I wanted at Calvert Woodley in DC, and they won't even entertain third party shipping to Texas. I demand my rights!
[soap.gif]
Tell them you want to ship it to a private, religious school.

(recent SCOTUS case humor...)
Ha, I don’t think First Baptist of Dallas will accept this delivery!

User avatar
David Glasser
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 7474
Joined: August 16th, 2009, 6:03 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#186 Post by David Glasser » July 1st, 2020, 11:22 am

Sc0tt F!tzger@ld wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 2:08 pm
D@vid Bu3ker wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 1:58 pm
Sc0tt F!tzger@ld wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 10:19 am
What's the latest on this? Frustrated as hell...found a wine I wanted at Calvert Woodley in DC, and they won't even entertain third party shipping to Texas. I demand my rights!
[soap.gif]
Tell them you want to ship it to a private, religious school.

(recent SCOTUS case humor...)
Ha, I don’t think First Baptist of Dallas will accept this delivery!
Start your own - St. Vinifera? No doubt easier than getting a license to import alcohol into the state.

Dan Kravitz
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 2464
Joined: May 10th, 2010, 3:47 pm
Location: Harpswell, Maine

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#187 Post by Dan Kravitz » July 1st, 2020, 6:11 pm

Adam Frisch wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 3:07 pm
Well, the tax rate for the states are one thing, but then depending on which county the buyer lives in there's often an extra tax there. As an example, here's from my tax compliance person in regards to Texas:

Texas is a bit more all over with the city, county and special rates so most of our clients just go with an average of 8%. The base rate is 6.25% with cities adding an additional 1% and counties and special areas adding 0.25%-0.50% depending on how many they fall into. Looking at the three cities you shipped to though they all fall into the 8.25% so if you are not going to have a lot at first you could just use that rate.

So as a shipper/seller, it's impossible to cover yourself for each county, so many just add an average tax.

Compliance here in the states is a nightmare. I don't know how it got this bad.
It got this bad when Prohibition was repealed and the Repeal Amendment seemed to let individual states stay dry... except the states read it as allowing them to both stay wet and to trash the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It's taking the Supreme Court about a century to straighten it out.

Dan Kravitz
swillmaster - ITB

User avatar
rsmithjr
Posts: 176
Joined: December 8th, 2015, 11:25 am
Location: Troy, Mich

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#188 Post by rsmithjr » July 6th, 2020, 11:53 am

crickey wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 1:39 pm
Mike Evans wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 10:39 am
Mark Golodetz wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 10:37 am


It has been removed
Thanks, I’ve corrected the link so it should work now.
I just saw this link and read the opinion. What was interesting was that the 6th Circuit read Tennessee Wine & Spirits as consistent with prior 21st Amendment cases. I suppose they had to, but for the issue before them, it was consistent with prior case law because Tennessee did not overturn licensing requirements and in the Michigan case, the issue was a retailer trying to sell into Michigan without a Michigan liquor license.

The problem with Tennessee Wine & Spirits was that it both affirmed and denied the restrictions of the 21st Amendment. It picked an example of a facially discriminatory statute and then proceeded to demonstrate the obvious, that facially discriminatory statutes aren't justifiable on health and welfare grounds. At the same time, it said that the 21st Amendment required greater deference to the state to justify such health and welfare grounds without establishing any guidance for lower courts to figure out where to draw boundaries.

The harder case is going to be when that same Indiana retailer applies for a license in Michigan and is denied because Michigan requires a physical presence in the state. The harder case is going to be when an out-of-state (but licensed) retailer sells a product in a state that was obtained from a wholesaler not licensed in that state, thus undermining the three-tier system. Both of those requirements were noted by the 6th Circuit as protected by the 21st Amendment, albeit as dicta. Are these really consistent with Tennessee Wine & Spirits?

All we know for sure is that there is a lot more litigation ahead.
This is a nightmare, I was hoping my De Negoce shipments were going to my summer home in Michigan.....
Roger Smith- Longtime wine drinker and bon vivant'

User avatar
Neal.Mollen
GCC Member
GCC Member
Posts: 37086
Joined: January 30th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court, and wine.

#189 Post by Neal.Mollen » July 6th, 2020, 12:22 pm

Dan Kravitz wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 6:11 pm
Adam Frisch wrote:
April 26th, 2020, 3:07 pm
Well, the tax rate for the states are one thing, but then depending on which county the buyer lives in there's often an extra tax there. As an example, here's from my tax compliance person in regards to Texas:

Texas is a bit more all over with the city, county and special rates so most of our clients just go with an average of 8%. The base rate is 6.25% with cities adding an additional 1% and counties and special areas adding 0.25%-0.50% depending on how many they fall into. Looking at the three cities you shipped to though they all fall into the 8.25% so if you are not going to have a lot at first you could just use that rate.

So as a shipper/seller, it's impossible to cover yourself for each county, so many just add an average tax.

Compliance here in the states is a nightmare. I don't know how it got this bad.
It got this bad when Prohibition was repealed and the Repeal Amendment seemed to let individual states stay dry... except the states read it as allowing them to both stay wet and to trash the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It's taking the Supreme Court about a century to straighten it out.

Dan Kravitz
As much as I hate the result, the price for repealing prohibition was ceding this regulatory power to the states. I'd say the (welcome) incremental claw back we are seeing from the Supreme Court is rewriting rather than restoring the history of the amendment.
I don't have to speak; she defends me

A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one

Post Reply

Return to “Wine Talk”