Federal Alcohol Administration Act Archives

Federal Alcohol Administration Act

TTB Ramps Up Tax Audits and Enforcement

by Alva C. Mather, Christine Dower and Michelle Draper | Mar 19, 2024 | Alcohol Excise Taxes, Enforcement, Licensing

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau’s (TTB) Office of Field Operations is responsible for ensuring industry members comply with the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, the Internal Revenue Code and all related regulations. It is divided into three groups: the Trade Investigations Division (TID), the Tax Audit Division (TAD) and the Intelligence Division.

Many industry members are most familiar with the TID, as it is comprised of investigators who are responsible for enforcing compliance with the trade practice laws and maintaining a level playing field. The TAD may be less familiar, however, as it is comprised of auditors who are responsible for ensuring payments of excise taxes and compliance with the laws and regulations in a manner that protects revenue and prevents unlawful activity in the commodities that the TTB regulates. The TAD works with other areas of the TTB and has the resources to assist in the investigations of underpayment of tax or other financial areas that relate to the laws and regulations enforced by the TTB. The TAD also performs random audits, which means that every industry member is susceptible to an audit.

Over the past year, the TAD has issued tax-related citations for failure to timely file and/or pay taxes, use of inappropriate tax rates (largely stemming from the improper use of reduced tax rates under the Craft Beverage Modernization Act (CBMA) and failure to maintain adequate records, among other violations. In 2023, the TTB resolved these violations by accepting offer-in-compromise (OIC) settlement payments from the targeted industry members, collectively, to the tune of approximately $850,000.

Based on a review of the OICs which are published on the TTB website, there were a wide range of tax-related violations last year, including:

Failure to timely file and/or pay taxes and reports. These failures accounted for nearly 70% of all OIC violations. In these common infringements, the permittee submits their reports or taxes late. The causes for a violation can range from (1) a simple late submission, even 1-2 days late; (2) filing the tax return without paying the taxes; (3) late payments due to processing times; or (4) a change in filing frequency. It is important to ensure that industry members’ reports are filed on time (even a day late is sufficient to warrant a violation) and that the taxes are paid promptly.
Use of inappropriate tax rates. There are two main categories of tax rate violations: (1) inappropriate use of reduced tax rates or credits, largely through improper use of the CBMA, and (2) inappropriate categorization of the product (commonly wine). An accurate determination of the product’s tax class is crucial to avoiding these violations, as is consideration of your eligibility (and continued eligibility) for CBMA-reduced rates or credits. We saw a significant increase in tax-related enforcement due to violations from acquisitions completed in the first half of 2023 which impacted eligibility of the reduced tax rates for the entity as a new member [...]

Continue Reading

Contracts Corner: Sponsorship Agreements

by Alva C. Mather | Jan 10, 2024 | Advertising and Marketing

Sponsorships continue to be one of the alcohol beverage industry’s primary methods of promoting brands to drinkers. In professional sports alone, alcohol beverage brands contributed $480 million in sponsorship revenue across the four major professional sports leagues during the 2022–2023 season, according to a SponsorUnited study. As suppliers look to better target audiences via sponsorships, it’s important for industry members looking to enter into a sponsorship relationship, as well as those hoping to engage an alcohol beverage brand as a sponsor, to understand how the regulation of the alcohol industry impacts these relationships and the contracts that solidify them.

The Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act prohibits an industry member (a supplier or wholesaler of alcohol beverages) from inducing a retailer to purchase a particular product to the exclusion of competitive products. See 27 U.S.C. § 205. An “inducement” may include a partial ownership stake in a retailer, money, free goods or other “things of value” provided to a retailer. The “exclusion” element requires the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau to show a potential real-world impact (i.e., the inducement results in a retailer purchasing less of a competing product than it otherwise would have, and the inducement places or threatens to place a retailer’s independence at risk) before a violation is found.

Sponsorships in other industries often involve a commitment that the brand paying sponsorship dollars will be the exclusive offering of a team, venue or event, or at a minimum, require that a particular brand be offered or available to consumers as part of the sponsor benefits. In the alcohol space, an industry member paying a retailer in exchange for the retailer’s commitment to serve the supplier’s brand(s) of alcohol beverages, often called “pouring rights,” typically satisfies both elements necessary to find a violation of the FAA Act: that the sponsorship fee is a thing of value, and it leads to the exclusion of competitive products.

Sponsor benefits should not include a commitment that a retailer purchase or not purchase a particular brand or brands of alcoholic beverages. Because of restrictions on the flow of money from suppliers to retailers, most sponsorship agreements involving an alcohol brand are between an industry member and a third-party unlicensed entity, not the entity holding the license to sell or serve alcohol at an event or within a venue. However, conduct that is prohibited for an industry member to engage in directly is also prohibited if undertaken indirectly using a third party as a pass-through entity. Accordingly, the entity selling sponsorship rights should represent and warrant the following:

It does not hold a license to sell alcohol at retail.
The funds paid under the terms of the agreement will not be passed on to a retailer.
Nothing contained in the agreement is intended to require or prohibit any retailer or concessionaire from purchasing or not purchasing a particular brand or brands of alcoholic beverages.

As we support clients in negotiating sponsorship agreements and understanding the scope of sponsor [...]

Continue Reading

TTB Publishes NPRMs to Repeal Standards of Fill for Wine and Distilled Spirits

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jul 3, 2019 | Alcohol Excise Taxes, TTB COLAs and Formulas

On Monday, July 1, 2019, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) published two eagerly anticipated notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) to largely repeal the standards of fill for wine and distilled spirits containers. The highlights: (more…)

Winds of Change Blowing for Craft Brewers

by Arthur J. DeCelle and McDermott Will & Emery | May 29, 2019 | Advertising and Marketing, Alcohol Excise Taxes, Distribution, Food Safety and FDA, Import/Export, Legislation, Trade Practices, TTB COLAs and Formulas

For those who follow developments in the law and craft brewing with equal passion, every year has its share of substantial issues. This year has been no exception, with a pending Supreme Court case; a substantial upswing in federal trade practice enforcement activity; a massive rewrite of US Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) labeling and advertising regulations; and prospects for extending the biggest cuts in the excise tax on beer since the repeal of Prohibition.

As these developments play out over the next year, we may see changes translate into the marketplace. Find out what you can expect.

Access the full article.

Originally published in The New Brewer, May/June 2019.

Five Issues That Impact Craft Brewers

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 31, 2018 | Advertising and Marketing, Alcohol Excise Taxes, Distribution, Legislation, Trade Practices

In an article published by The New Brewer, Marc Sorini discusses five issues most likely to have a meaningful impact on craft brewers in the coming years, including:

The Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act’s (CBMTRA) new tiered excise tax rate structure, its extending benefits to foreign producers, and its authorization for brewers to transfer beer in bond between breweries of different ownership.
The Sixth Circuit’s published opinion in Byrd v. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association, affirming a decision finding that the “durational-residency” requirements imposed by Tennessee law for alcohol beverage retail licensees are unconstitutional under the “dormant” Commerce Clause.
The TTB’s creation of a new unit within its Trade Investigations Division to focus on trade practice enforcement.
The opinion in Mission Beverage Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co. from the California Court of Appeals, which found that “an existing distributor’s receipt of the ‘fair market value of the affected distribution rights’ under [the California statute] does not necessarily make that distributor whole.”
The US District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision in a putative class action alleging that the labeling and marketing of a successful California-based craft brewery was false and deceptive.

Access the full article.

Originally published in The New Brewer, May/June 2018.

USDA Publishes Proposed GMO Labeling Regulations

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 14, 2018 | Advertising and Marketing, Food Safety and FDA, Legislation

The Agricultural Marketing Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently published a proposed rule containing regulations to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard mandated by Congress in 2016. See 83 Fed. Reg. 19860 (May 4, 2018). The proposed regulations would govern the labeling of raw agricultural products and packaged foods whose labeling is governed the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act, including wines below 7 percent alcohol by volume and non-malt beer (e.g., “hard seltzers”). The proposed regulations would not directly apply to alcohol beverages whose labeling is governed by the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, including all distilled spirits, wines containing 7 percent alcohol by volume or greater, and beer containing malted barley and hops. Nevertheless, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau may look to the bioengineered food disclosure regulations as persuasive guidance in developing its own policies towards the disclosure of bioengineered ingredients (often called “genetically modified organisms” or “GMOs”). (more…)

District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Deception Claims against Brewer

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 24, 2018 | Advertising and Marketing

On January 17, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision in yet another putative class action alleging that a beer brand’s labeling and marketing was false and deceptive. In this case, the defendant is The 21st Amendment Brewery Café (21st Amendment), a successful California-based craft brewery. See Peacock v. The 21st Amendment Brewery Café, LLC, N.D. Cal. No. 17-cv-01918-JST (Jan. 17, 2018). (more…)

TTB Updates to the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda

by McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 27, 2017 | Advertising and Marketing, Alcohol Excise Taxes, Non-Beverage Alcohol, TTB COLAs and Formulas

Last week in its regular newsletter, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) announced updates to the Fall edition of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda). Like other federal agencies, TTB uses the Regulatory Agenda to report on its current rulemaking projects.

In the updated agenda, a few new items have been added, and many expected publication dates of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs), Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and Final Rules have changed. As always, readers should recognize that TTB rulemaking moves very slowly, and the Agency often does not meet the aspirational dates published in the Regulatory Agenda. (more…)

The Intersection of Spirits and Marijuana

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Dec 15, 2017 | Advertising and Marketing, Cannabis, Food Safety and FDA, Legislation, TTB COLAs and Formulas

In the past three years, TTB has approved an increasing number of certificate of label approvals (“COLA”) for hemp-flavored vodka, from Mill Six’s hemp, white tea and ginger flavored vodka to Olde Imperial Mystic’s hemp infused vodka. Distillers have designed labels with green smoke-like images and psychedelic sixties-style lettering to hint at their cultural connection to marijuana. As more states have legalized recreational cannabis, distillers have been thinking more ambitiously about combining their distilling business with one or more aspects of the emerging marijuana business.

Read the full article.

Originally published in Artisan Spirit: Winter 2017.

TTB Issues Guidance on Application of Consignment Sales Regulations to Freshness Dating and Returns from Retailers

by Arthur J. DeCelle | Oct 17, 2017 | Trade Practices

On September 29, 2017, the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued Ruling 2017-2, which updates and supersedes older agency guidance on allowable returns of beer and malt beverage products that contain “pull dates” or other indicators of product freshness.

The Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act includes a general prohibition on “consignment sales,” 27 USC 205(d). Congress believed that all transactions should be “bona fide” sales. Id. The intent was to prevent a wide range of unscrupulous practices that might occur if manufacturers and wholesalers furnishing alcohol beverages to retailers on consignment or with the right of return.

The FAA Act prohibition on consignment sales does not apply to “transactions involving solely the bona fide return of merchandise for ordinary and usual commercial reasons arising after the merchandise has been sold.” Id. TTB regulations provide an extensive list of reasons that a manufacturer or wholesaler can accept returns. 27 CFR, Part 11, Subpart D. (more…)

BLOG EDITOR

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS