While Illinois residents aren’t much closer to finally being able to receive direct shipments from Kermit Lynch (except to the extent that wonderful man sells anything from U.S. wineries). The provisions of new amendments to Illinois Wine Shipper’s license have made it easier for wineries to have third-parties appointed to ship on their behalf. Public […]
Brewers and distillers that sell spent grains to farmers will want to stay tuned to the FDA’s Proposed Rule for Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventative controls for Food for Animals over at regulations.gov. The proposed rule will establish good manufacturing practices for animal feed and require anyone falling within the […]
Alcoholic beverage producers and advertisers have a new win in the line of cases providing constitutional protection under the First Amendment to beverage industry commercial speech. The opinion in Educational Media v. Insley, comes from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and can be found here. The case started because the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage […]
There was quite a hullabaloo back in 2009 when the Michigan Liquor Control Commission initially denied licensing approval to Flying Dog for Raging Bitch. For those of you that don’t remember, the Commission denied Flying Dog’s label application for Raging Bitch reasoning that the label was “detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the […]
It’s pretty common to get extra winemaking and brewing equipment through an auction of an estate or bankruptcy court’s sale of the assets of a debtor. Keeping an eye on regional auctions and announcements can be a lucrative method for obtaining some pretty nice equipment or even land at a reduced price. In Tarbox v. […]
We should probably call this the legacy of Granholm, but the industry will need to see if it lasts. Our fellow blogger and IP law guru, David Ter Molen – who runs a great blog over at The Food Identity Blog forwarded us this recent piece from Food Manufacturing about consumer trends in wine. This […]
A fine homebrewing setup.It’s a different kind of Super Tuesday in Wisconsin today as the State Legislature is considering Senate Bill 395, which amends the Wisconsin Homebrew laws to allow homebrewers an express right to transport their brews for “contest, competition, or other event for the exhibition, demonstration, judging, tasting, or sampling of homemade wine […]
Anyone who’s read Richard Unger’s wonderful work “Beer In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance” understands that the medieval history of beer isn’t just taste, quality, ingredients, and anecdotes about witches and overindulging monks – it’s money. Fermented beverages and laws involving them are inextricably linked with the government’s purse strings.
Alcohol production and taxes are fait accompli, which is the origin and explanation for the majority of regulatory structures and laws that control production, distribution, and consumption.
So when the Nebraska Supreme Court recently took up the question of whether a flavored malt beverage (think Mike’s Hard Lemonade or Smirnoff Ice) was a beer or a spirit, they weren’t indulging in the kind of philosophical exercise that you’d expect in the waning hours of a meeting at your local homebrewers’ association. The Nebraska Supreme Court was determining how much the state was going to make off a gallon of the stuff and noted the point in the first sentences of their opinion in Project Extra Mile v. The Nebraska Liquor Control Commission:
We are asked to decide whether a flavored malt beverage is a beer or spirit under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act. It makes a difference. Beer is taxed at 31 cents per gallon; spirits are taxed at $3.75 per gallon.
The debate about flavored malt beverages usually concerns whether they’re improperly aimed at the youth market and has been around for a while. In 2007 the New York Times wrote about them, and in 2009, the National Conference of State Legislatures posted a short article on the debate that’s a decent primer.
In Project Extra Mile, the Nebraska Supreme Court was faced with a few questions based on a lack of legislative action.
The Nebraska legislature hadn’t passed a bill on how to classify flavored malt beverages. In fact, a bill had been introduced to follow the federal regulations on the subject back in 2006 and it was never passed by the legislature. But, even though the legislature hadn’t decided, the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission still needed to determine how to tax FMBs under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act because they were served in, and imported to, Nebraska – they couldn’t hide their head in the sand. And the NLCC determined FMBs were beer by doing just what the legislature had attempted to do by statute, adopting a rule enacting the Tax and Trade Bureau’s regulations from 27 C.F.R. parts 7 and 25: