Shelton Brothers issue statement regarding New York's repeal of beer tax and fee exemptions

Discussion in 'Beer News' started by Todd, May 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. emannths

    emannths Initiate (0) Sep 21, 2007 Massachusetts

    I suspect that section is there to explain that the reason they challenged the registration law was because it had a relatively large impact on them as compared to NYS brewers. They may be trying to head off the complaint that they filed the suit to get the fee imposed on NYS brewers as opposed to having it lifted from importers.
     
  2. Beerandraiderfan

    Beerandraiderfan Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2009 Nevada

    I'm guessing its because of the Supremacy clause and the notion of pre-emption.
     
    decadance likes this.
  3. stupac2

    stupac2 Pooh-Bah (2,031) Feb 22, 2011 California
    Pooh-Bah Society

    If you actually read the whole thing (I admit it's long, but still) you're see that they say that they pay a significant amount of registration fees while making up a much, much smaller percentage of total sales. This is because Shelton has a metric crapton of brands, but basically none are high volume. Because they need to register each brand, they end up getting hit a lot harder by that fee than a brewery that makes many fewer brands and sells more of each.
     
    Beerandraiderfan likes this.
  4. Levitation

    Levitation Initiate (0) Aug 7, 2009 California

    unlike the brooklyn brewing charity foundation?
     
    beerindex, Kgristoff, sliverX and 2 others like this.
  5. grandq

    grandq Initiate (0) Jun 4, 2005 New York

    I'm well aware of their portfolio and am happy to support my local brewers rather than trainspot the latest from trend from Europe. Certainly some old standbys I'd be sad to give up, but there's enough variety from the great brewers here and nearby, and other importers bringing in quality product from elsewhere
     
    halo21 and jimmy666 like this.
  6. macrosmatic

    macrosmatic Pooh-Bah (2,646) Mar 9, 2006 Florida
    Pooh-Bah Society Trader

    God, I love Beer Advocate. You log on to learn about beer, and get a bonus Constitutional law discussion.

    (being serious, not snarky. This discussion is interesting, & completely out of my knowledge base)
     
    Retail1LO and Kgristoff like this.
  7. emannths

    emannths Initiate (0) Sep 21, 2007 Massachusetts

    Not to make this Constitutional Advocate or anything, but the question arises because Section 10 on the Constitution explicitly says that the States can't do certain things that Congress is empowered to do in Section 8 (e.g., it says that States can't coin money). Section 10 says nothing about restricting the States' ability to regulate interstate commerce.

    The Equal Protection Clause (1868) post-dates relevant Commerce Clause precedent that finds states cannot tax imports from other states. Additionally, in post-1868 cases, the 14th Amendment is usually not cited in connection with the Commerce Clause this precedent.
     
  8. Beerandraiderfan

    Beerandraiderfan Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2009 Nevada

    Way to avoid the latest trend. . . by supporting local brewers. . .and by not purchasing "old standbys".

    Um, . . .
     
  9. decadance

    decadance Pundit (759) Mar 14, 2010 Texas

    As a Con Law prof (undergraduate) I absolutely love this.
     
  10. Beerandraiderfan

    Beerandraiderfan Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2009 Nevada

    Please don't take my statement to mean you didn't have a legitimate question(s).

    There's plenty of explicit things in the Constitution that caselaw determines isn't the case (1st amendment, Congress shall make "no law abridging" . . . there's plenty of time/place/manner restrictions for example, completely contrary to the verbage "NO" law. . .). And then there's the opposite. . . right to privacy? Nowhere in the Constitution. Courts made it up last century as a constitutional right.

    But the ability to regulate commerce IS in Section 8 . . .so I don't understand where you're getting confused. Section 10 says state's can't do what Congress can in section 8, section 8 says congress can.

    The 14th amendment involves everything involving States and federal rights, re: incorporation.
     
  11. GarrettOliver

    GarrettOliver Initiate (0) Jul 25, 2003 New York

    Well, well, well. I have just been made aware of this thread. Let me just make a few points here. I am not a lawyer like Mr. Shelton, so I cannot claim to have any direct knowledge of what effects these tax law changes will have. I also have nothing to do with legislative issues or dealings with political figures - I make beer. I argued to Mr. Shelton, in a private email, that perhaps he should not be doing things that will have negative effects on small breweries.

    I pointed out that I like many of the beers he imports, that I have helped promote them (as most of us have, in some way or other), and that I've poured them in numerous tastings. Why, I wondered - talking, as I thought I was, to him alone - would he want to do a thing like this? Even if his statements regarding tax law are correct (and I have no idea whether they are), many states have situations that in some way favor in-state brewers. Frankly, it never occurred to me to think of them as unfair. I will not go down this path and print bits and pieces of Mr. Shelton's response; I would, however, characterize it as inflammatory. Mr. Shelton and I have had many heated arguments, often to the wee hours, all over foreign capitols; it's a running joke at this point.

    I will also say that I have not, with anyone, anywhere, discussed, mentioned, or alluded to this issue. Nor have I read any of these blogs he speaks of. Did I ask Mr. Shelton "WTF"? Yes, I certainly did. I did not expect to find my comments to him characterized in the press; I thought I was talking to Mr. Shelton. But then again, I'm an adult, and I do read the news, and I should know better - people do these things. And, the more I think of it, in this situation, that makes me the idiot here. Mr. Shelton is far smarter, and knows exactly what he's doing.
     
    halo21, dc55110, bugdoc and 21 others like this.
  12. grandq

    grandq Initiate (0) Jun 4, 2005 New York

    I don't see what was "um" worthy about my statement, perhaps I wasn't clear. I have some I've frequently purchased from Sheltons' portfolio, they have a couple English Bitters and Milds, styles I find hard to locate from other sources, thus personal "standbys."

    But I would willingly forgo them, along with their trendy, ticker-bait, "look how new and rare and hard to find our selection is" and stick to my local brewers.
     
  13. Beerandraiderfan

    Beerandraiderfan Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2009 Nevada

    Because it affects his bottom line and everyone should be treated equally?
     
    beerindex likes this.
  14. Bluecane

    Bluecane Initiate (0) Dec 30, 2011 New York

    Right. But a registration law, requiring all distributors to pay a given fee for each brand they sell probably wouldn't be unconstitutional, at least not on its face.
     
  15. Beerandraiderfan

    Beerandraiderfan Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2009 Nevada

    I just didn't understand how not buying the products you've been buying as old standbys was avoiding a trend.

    Whereas, "support your local ____" you were going to adhere to seemed to be a more prevalent trend than purchasing old standbys.
     
  16. Bluecane

    Bluecane Initiate (0) Dec 30, 2011 New York

    I did read it. But, as I said above, a rule that taxes per brand, without discriminating against out-of-state brewers, would not be facially unconstitutional, since it's not discriminatory on its face. I don't know what New York's State Constitution looks like, but the taxing power is usually broad, and I would expect such a law to be subject to merely rational basis review, which basically no law ever fails (so as to be unconstitutional).
     
  17. grandq

    grandq Initiate (0) Jun 4, 2005 New York

    It was worded a bit offhand, I didn't know I needed to carefully parse the semantics before posting. I have "standbys" I regularly buy from both local and far flung breweries, a couple of which are Shelton. I am annoyed with Shelton for damaging my local brewing scene and for their petulant response, so I will cut out what portion I buy from them. The "trend" comment was in reference to my view of their business model: long tail, low volume, putting an emphasis on rarity
     
  18. Bluecane

    Bluecane Initiate (0) Dec 30, 2011 New York

    Basically, I'm less inclined to feel bad because it's just an incident of their business, another cost that has to be considered among the others. They were certainly legally correct in their challenge to it; but, even if the law were structured so as to be constitutional, I don't feel particularly bad that their business model exposes them to an increased cost relative to other business models.
     
    grandq likes this.
  19. emannths

    emannths Initiate (0) Sep 21, 2007 Massachusetts

    Section 10 says States can't do specific things. There are powers given to Congress in Sec 8 that aren't mentioned in Sec 10. Nowhere does it say that Sec 8 powers are entirely exclusive to Congress.

    Sec 10:
     
  20. Beerandraiderfan

    Beerandraiderfan Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2009 Nevada

    You don't need to do anything. The general notion, not the semantical value was what didn't make sense (to me).

    Can you point me to this "damage" you speak of? It sounds like a claim not backed by evidence, or that is speculative, but I'm not in New York, maybe there have been lots of documented layoffs and breweries closing their doors specifically over this already that I'm not aware of.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.