Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

  • Home
  • About
  • Editorial
  • Birthdays
  • Art & Beer

Socialize

  • Dribbble
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • GitHub
  • Google+
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
Powered by Head Quarters Built on WordPress
You are here: Home / Editorial / Confirmation Of How SF Alcohol Fees To Be Applied

Confirmation Of How SF Alcohol Fees To Be Applied

June 29, 2010 By Jay Brooks 4 Comments

san-francisco
I got confirmation last night on how exactly the proposed San Francisco alcohol fees will be applied. The actual language in the ordinance is incredibly vague and open to interpretation (and misinterpretation). My source has either spoken to several city supervisors or talked to others who have, a combination of the two, I believe. And here’s what we’ve learned. There’s good news and bad news, so to speak.

Despite the change in language — apparently an “ethanol ounce” is common European parlance — the proposed ordinance will still be applying the tax “per fluid ounce of alcohol,” forcing a lot of math and administrative headaches, to say the least. So every single bottle containing alcohol, even changing vintages, will require a formula be applied to it. For example, take a 12 oz. bottle of beer that’s 6% a.b.v. Here’s how it will work.

  • 12 oz. x 0.06 (the % of alcohol) = 0.72 ounces of alcohol
  • 0.72 x $0.076 dollars = 0.5472 cents “fee”
  • Rounded, presumably, to 5 cents or possibly 5.5 cents

To say the least, it will be an administrative nightmare — primarily for wholesalers, brewpubs and self-distributing breweries who will be filing the reports and paying the fee.

Here’s a few more examples of what the fee would be for various alcoholic beverages.

  • 22 oz. bottle of 10% barley wine = 16.7 cents
  • 750 ml bottle of 14% wine = 27 cents
  • 750 ml bottle of 40% single malt whisky = 77 cents
  • 15.5 gallon keg of 8% Pliny the Elder = $12.06

And let’s not forget that the fee will be imposed at the wholesale level, meaning that it will be marked up and the fee passed along to consumers at a much higher rate, and then marked up again by the retailer or bar, whoever sells it to you and me.

Filed Under: Editorial, News, Politics & Law Tagged With: California, San Francisco, Taxes



Comments

  1. WTF says

    June 29, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Well, this is some good news. The scenario you proposed before would have been a nightmare for the beer industry. At least the government can be counted on once in a while to use reason in deciding these things.

    I don’t think that the calculations will be the “administrative nightmare” that you propose, however. Since container sizes are relatively consistent among the same alcohol families, every alcohol percentage only needs to be calculated once, so I don’t think that will be quite so bad, since you can just make a simple chart.

    Good follow-up on this story, I was wondering what would come of it.

    Reply
  2. Christian says

    June 29, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    So as a self distributing brewpub in Marin, I will have to cut a monthly check to SF, depending on volume and ABV, to do business in SF? Or will this be much like the CRV, which I simply pass on to my wholesale account? Bottom line, this is a nightmare.

    Reply
  3. Martyn Cornell says

    June 29, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    “apparently an “ethanol ounce” is common European parlance …”

    I don’t think so – for a start we’d do it in millilitres, and we’d call it alcohol anyway. The usual European “unit” is 10ml/8gm of alcohol.

    Reply
    • J says

      June 29, 2010 at 4:43 pm

      Martyn,

      That’s a fair point. It was my source who told me it was more common abroad. I’ll have to see if I can find out more about that.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Northern California Breweries

Please consider purchasing my latest book, California Breweries North, available from Amazon, or ask for it at your local bookstore.

The Sessions

session_logo_all_text_1500

Next Session: Dec. 7, 2018
#142: One More for the Road
Previous Sessions
  • #141: Future of Beer Blogging
  • #140: Pivo
  • #139: Beer & the Good Life
  • #138: The Good in Wood
  • #137: German Wheat
Archive, History & Hosting

Enter your email address:

Typology Tuesday

Typology-png
Next Typology:
On or Before March 29, 2016
#3: Irish-Style Dry Stout
Previous Typologies
  • #2: Bock Feb. 2016
  • #1: Barley Wine Jan. 2016
Archive & History

Recent Posts

  • Beer In Ads #4088: Introducing Miss Rheingold 1948, The Best Beer Salesman In Town May 16, 2022
  • Beer Birthday: Gary Spedding May 16, 2022
  • Historic Beer Birthday: Maria Best May 16, 2022
  • Historic Beer Birthday: John Schneider May 16, 2022
  • Beer In Ads #4087: Introducing Miss Rheingold 1948 To Their Distributors May 15, 2022

RSS Brookston Beer in Art

  • Roof PintRichard Skipworthc. 2020
    Roof PintRichard Skipworthc. 2020

Recent Comments

  • Angeline Ungerer on Historic Beer Birthday: M.K. Goetz
  • Dick DeShon on Historic Beer Birthday: M.K. Goetz
  • John hughes on Beer In Ads Special Edition: John Ireland’s The Gentle Art of Making Guinness
  • John hughesy on Beer In Ads Special Edition: John Ireland’s The Gentle Art of Making Guinness
  • Moe Peppers on Beer In Ads: #2859: A Clear Commitment
May 2022
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Apr    

Find Something

Tag Cloud

Advertising Anheuser-Busch Announcements Bay Area Belgium Brewers Association Brewing Equipment Budweiser Business California Christmas Europe France Germany Guinness Health & Beer History Holidays Hops Humor Infographics Kegs Law Mainstream Coverage Miller Brewing Northern California Pabst Packaging Patent Pennsylvania Press Release Prohibitionists Rheingold San Francisco Schlitz Science Science of Brewing Sports Statistics The Netherlands UK Uncategorized United States Video Washington