Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1689
Subject: Cider Digest #1689, 29 January 2012
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1689 29 January 2012
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Excise Tax Position ("Howard, John")
RE: Excise Tax (Jay Hersh)
Excise Tax Position ("Rich Anderson")
Re: Excise Tax Position (Dick Dunn)
Excise Tax position (Andrew Lea)
NOTE: Digest appears whenever there is enough material to send one.
Send ONLY articles for the digest to cider@talisman.com.
Use cider-request@talisman.com for subscribe/unsubscribe/admin requests.
Archives of the Digest are available at www.talisman.com/cider#Archives
Digest Janitor: Dick Dunn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Excise Tax Position
From: "Howard, John" <jhoward@beckerfrondorf.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:41:33 -0500
Well done Steve and Mike! With domestic jobs and taxes such "juicy"
issues this year, one would hope there is an elected representative out
there who would champion this. Best of luck!
John Howard
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Excise Tax
From: Jay Hersh <jsh@doctorbeer.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:07:54 -0500
In a subject of much interest to my wife, A similar situation exists
for fermentables made from honey. The law foolishly (or perhaps
intentionally owing to lobbying in the early days after prohibition)
classifies things for tax purposes based on the source of fermentable
sugars and not the strength of the product. This has forced meads
into competition with wine and has, in general, precluded the
production of much in the way of "table" strength mead despite the
large historical basis (at least in Europe) of the production and
consumption of such lower strength mead.
I applaud any effort to try to get Congress to rationalize this
system and if there is anything I can do in the way of lending a hand
with historical perspective on the brewing trades or tax practices in
other countries please let me know.
Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer (TM)
------------------------------
Subject: Excise Tax Position
From: "Rich Anderson" <rhanderson@centurytel.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:16:38 -0800
I like this approach having scratched my head on how to approach an agency
which is primarily interested in collecting taxes. One concern I have is to
do this in a way which benefits all cider producers so that large producers
do not take over the conversation. This proposal appears to do this by
having a generic definition for cider, but it may be too narrow for some. My
hope is that the Cider Conference organizers reach out to the large
producers since there seems to be some animosity in the ranks of small cider
producers toward large producers. We need an united front on issues like
this.
In the interim I plan to spend some effort in upgrading my equipment and
understanding so I can monitor the carbonation process without breaking the
bank and stay within limitations of current law.
Enjoy Chicago!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Excise Tax Position
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:26:39 -0700
Mike and Steve's position paper does a good job of tackling the two most
vexing matters in US cider regulation/taxation. Nevertheless, there are
some serious concerns.
First, although the article compares cider taxation to beer, and although
the biggest cider producers use beer-style packaging and marketing, legally
cider is a wine. Any changes in cider taxation will be considered in
context of wine regulations. The exorbitant tax rate at higher carbonation
levels doesn't just apply to cider; it applies to all wines in the US. Can
the cider community influence that rate? (Can the tail wag the dog?)
The case for eliminating the strange 7% abv boundary is much better, as
there is nothing comparable for beer or wine (afaik).
The other big concern in the proposal is redefining cider (and perry) to
remove any minimum juice content and allow arbitrary addition of sugar
and/or water. It simply can't stand that way. I found it so puzzling
I talked to Steve Wood about it. His view is that this part of the
position is deliberately provocative, and he does expect there will be
some limits, but it will be up to the "big guys" to determine what they
should be.
His expectation (sorry to put words in your mouth Steve!) is that the big
guys don't want to see cider cheapened to where it's the drink of winos
or twenty-something rowdies. They can't let that happen to their market,
so they'll figure out limits that they can live with.
Well...I hope Steve is right, and he might well be, but after talking to
others and playing devil's advocate with myself, I see various ways it
could go badly: The limits might end up -not- being imposed, or they
might be way too low. The no-limit position could split off serious
craft cidermakers at a time when the US cider industry needs to speak
with one voice. Cheap-wine makers could lobby against changes for cider
as an attack on their market. Regulators, consumer advocates, and neo-
prohibitionists would all have a bone to pick.
Don't get me wrong--I do want to see the "bubble tax" removed and I don't
want the 7% abv boundary. That means I don't want the efforts against
them to backfire.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: Excise Tax position
From: Andrew Lea <andrew@harphill.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:52:37 +0000
On 25/01/2012 15:59, Steve and Mike wrote:
> 3. Define `cider' and `perry' as made of 100% pome fruit, with no limits
> on water content, sugar content (pre- or post- fermentation), or percentage
> of concentrate.
As an admitted outsider from the eastern side of the pond, maybe I'm
misunderstanding this, but this reads to me as if you plan no lower
limits on juice content at all and would allow any amount of
fortification with sugars or syrups before fermentation and added water
afterwards? Is this really what you want?
We had a definition of cider like this in the UK until 2010. It led to
the dumbing down of mass market ciders over many years until many of
them became more accurately described as 'glucose wines' (a term coined
I believe by Julian Temperley). Many of these - typically the 'white
ciders' with juice contents at 10% or below - became associated with
drunken teenagers and the worst features of alcohol abuse. This did no
favours at all to the public image of cider.
To combat this, the UK government initially proposed higher taxes on all
ciders above a certain alcohol level but this would have damned the good
equally with the bad. Eventually common sense prevailed and we now have,
for the first time ever, a statutory lower limit on the amount of apple
juice that must be used in the manufacture of cider (currently 35% juice
at SG 1.033). It's not very much but it does draw a boundary and more
importantly it signifies that there should be boundaries. Ciders that do
not comply with this are regarded as 'made wines' and are more heavily
taxed
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1914/pdfs/uksiem_20101914_en.pdf
I am very surprised that you should willingly wish to follow the worst
aspects of the British model. It will do no favours to those fighting to
revitalise and to re-establish the US craft cider tradition. Please
think again!
Andrew Lea
nr Oxford, UK
www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1689
*************************
