Wine-by-mail considered by House, Senate
The consumer-backed version of the wine-by-mail legislation was introduced in the House and Senate Friday morning with little fanfare.
The measures are similar to last year's effort: They allow vineyards and stores to send wine directly to consumers via the U.S. mail. The legislation is popular with lovers of specialty wines who have been frustrated that the current law prevents shipments. Some Marylanders skirt the state's prohibition by having cases wine shipped to Washington, D.C. where it can be legally mailed.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat, said there is "broad consensus" in the Senate that wine shipping should be allowed this year and thirty-two senators have signed on to the bill. The House version, introduced by Prince George's County Democrat Jolene Ivey, has 83 sponsors including House Speaker Michael E. Busch.
But liquor lobbyist Bruce Bereano predicted additional bills more friendly to the industry would be introduced. He doesn't believe out-of-state retailers should be allowed to mail into Maryland. Such a provision would expose Maryland's liquor stores to competition that could "cannibalize" their business, he said.
Advocates disagree. They also that the industry-backed restriction would prevent Marylanders from participating in wine-of-the-month clubs.
The measures are similar to last year's effort: They allow vineyards and stores to send wine directly to consumers via the U.S. mail. The legislation is popular with lovers of specialty wines who have been frustrated that the current law prevents shipments. Some Marylanders skirt the state's prohibition by having cases wine shipped to Washington, D.C. where it can be legally mailed.
Sen. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat, said there is "broad consensus" in the Senate that wine shipping should be allowed this year and thirty-two senators have signed on to the bill. The House version, introduced by Prince George's County Democrat Jolene Ivey, has 83 sponsors including House Speaker Michael E. Busch.
But liquor lobbyist Bruce Bereano predicted additional bills more friendly to the industry would be introduced. He doesn't believe out-of-state retailers should be allowed to mail into Maryland. Such a provision would expose Maryland's liquor stores to competition that could "cannibalize" their business, he said.
Advocates disagree. They also that the industry-backed restriction would prevent Marylanders from participating in wine-of-the-month clubs.
Comments
Good.
How does the law propose to manage the taxes on these sales? Will it be done differently than anything else bought online and shipped into MD?
Posted by: MrRational | January 28, 2011 8:28 PM
If Bereano is against it, the idea must have some merit.
Posted by: Cheap Jim | January 29, 2011 10:29 AM
That sure would be the apocalypse, wouldn't it? Marylanders participating in wine-of-the-month clubs? I can't imagine anything worse for public order, and I can't imagine anything more important for our elected representatives to be focusing like a laser on.
Posted by: jjjackson | January 29, 2011 10:35 AM
Unlike other goods bought online from out-of-state retailers, wine sold to Maryland residents regardless of its origin would be assessed Maryland excise and sales tax. The winery or retailer would have to stipulate as such in order to receive the permit. As a result, the cost of the taxes on the wine would be the same whether you bought it from somewhere locally or not.
Posted by: Adam Borden | January 31, 2011 11:10 AM
Mr Borden: You make that process sound oh so simple. Not that I doubt it is manageable but if it is as simple as you describe... why isn't such already being done by Maryland (and all the other states too) with all the other goods bought across state lines?
Posted by: MrRational | January 31, 2011 2:22 PM
The fundamental debate as to whether online or catalog merchants collect tax has to do with whether they have a physical presence in the state. Under the proposed wine shipping permit (but not for any other good), an out-of-state entity must submit to Maryland jurisdiction for both tax collection and enforcement. Other states have looked at similar positions for their overall sales tax collection, but there has not yet been unanimity among the states to deal with this discrepancy. Alcohol is treated differently than most other goods in a lot of ways, so requiring Maryland sales tax to be collected is no different than many of the other exceptional circumstances around the product. Most out-of-state wineries are used to these kinds of restrictions.
Posted by: Adam Borden | January 31, 2011 8:14 PM
The reason alcohol is treated differently that other products is because it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that the states have broad powers to police the sales of alcohol both intra and interstate.
Posted by: unrest | January 31, 2011 10:19 PM
Perhaps I just shouldn't do "coy".
I don't have any problem whatsoever with shipping wine, beer, liquor or DVD players into MD for the convenience of folks, bargains or for access to unusual items hard to find in a local store.
My apparently too subtle point here is that for years, and especially so the last twenty or so since the internet was a factor, the several state comptrollers have railed against sellers asserting they can't do the job of applying X% by State/zipcode, then assessing and later forwarding those receipts to the several states involved whether they had a brick & mortar presence or not.
The reasons for being aghast at this notion are magnified in economic times like this. Lets use this use as an impetus to secure the rest of what is due to the states (not just Maryland).
Posted by: MrRational | February 1, 2011 4:30 PM