Brewing Business in Pa.: Clarification of Tax Law May Affect Industry
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue recently announced that Pennsylvania breweries are to begin collecting 6 percent sales tax on direct to consumer beer sales. This is a significant departure from the department's prior determination that breweries were exempt from collecting and remitting sales tax from direct-to-consumer sales.
February 22, 2019 at 03:54 PM
6 minute read
Alexandra “Sasha” Sacavage, McNees Wallace & Nurick
Pennsylvania has a rich history in brewed beer. According to the Beer Museum in Pittsburgh, the first brewery in the colony was built on the location of a land grant from William Penn in 1684. Penn himself had a brewery around the same time and gifted barrels of his beer as part of his diplomatic efforts. Over the next several hundred years, the commonwealth became home to tens of thousands of eastern European immigrants who continued the practice. Prohibition halted production for a time, but manufacturing returned and today there are more than 360 breweries operating in the commonwealth.
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue recently announced that Pennsylvania breweries are to begin collecting 6 percent sales tax on direct to consumer beer sales. This is a significant departure from the department's prior determination that breweries were exempt from collecting and remitting sales tax from direct-to-consumer sales. The change in policy has caused concern among an industry that includes small family-owned operations to sprawling mega breweries, and every size in between. The industry has undergone major changes in the last several years, and brewers of every size have had to navigate the liquor code and accompanying tax regulations.
Historically, breweries were not permitted to sell their own beer for on-premise consumption without additional licensing from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (the board.) Under the old rules, breweries were confined to sales to distributors, and for tax purposes the distributors would collect 6 percent sales tax when selling the beer to retailers and the public. In 2015, the board issued regulations permitting breweries to sell their own beer direct to consumers for onsite consumption, triggering changes in sales and tax remuneration. After the new regulations were issued, distributors continued collecting the required sales tax but there was no collection on a brewery to consumer transaction.
For the uninitiated to Pennsylvania's complex Liquor Code, breweries hold a “G” category license with the board which entitles the holder to produce malt or brewed beverages and to transport, sell and deliver those malt or brewed beverages. Some breweries hold a companion “GP” or “brewery pub” category license which allows a brewery to operate a restaurant or brew pub within or immediately adjacent to the brewery's premises, see 47 P.S. Section 4-431(a), 47 P.S. Section 4-446. The brewery pub is no longer necessary for a brewery to sell its beer for on premise consumption but there are some additional physical requirements required by the board. Specifically, the brewery must have adequate seating for at least 10 patrons and must make food available for each patron and may only serve beer for on-premises consumption between 10 a.m. and midnight, 40 Pa. Code § 3.93(c)(4). The regulatory changes have allowed breweries increased freedom of service and sales.
For tax purposes, G licensees were treated like Restaurant “R,” Hotel “H,” and Eating Place “E” licensees, who pay taxes on wholesale cost rather than point of sale. Distributors “D” licensees collect on the retail price at the point of sale. The Pennsylvania brewery industry continued to adhere to the applicable tax rules as determined by the Department of Revenue until 2018, when the department issued a rule clarification related to tax on direct to consumer beer sales. The department made it clear that breweries are required to collect 6 percent sales tax on direct-to-consumer transactions. The department indicated the law has not changed but that clarification was necessary because of changes to the liquor laws. They say that the new rules are consistent with Pennsylvania's Tax Reform Code of 1971 and point to language in the statute that states that “a brewery shall collect and remit sales tax on sales of malt or brewed beverages to any person for any purpose except to distributors or importing distributors.” The department asserts that although this new directive is merely a clarification of tax law, they are sensitive to the affect that the change may have on the industry. They have agreed to push the start of tax collection from Jan. 1, 2019 until June 1, 2019. At that time, the department will begin collecting 6 percent sales tax for every dollar of beer sold by breweries directly to consumers in addition to the $2.48 per barrel state excise tax that Pennsylvania breweries already pay.
Breweries remain concerned about the potential for increases in prices to cause a decrease in sales in a crowded industry where the business environment can be cutthroat. Every operating brewery must maintain compliance with the strict requirements of the Liquor Code as well as obligations imposed by the Department of Revenue in addition to running a profitable business. The industry seems to accept taxation on their product, but prefers that it be collected at the wholesale level. The impact of the rule change will be felt most in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, home to a large number of breweries. Philadelphia levies a liquor tax of 10 percent applicable to sales of liquor, wine, or malt and brewed beverages. The city also levies a general sales tax of 2 percent on drink sales. Pittsburgh assesses a 7 percent drink tax along with a 1 percent sales tax. Breweries are concerned that consumers will pay more for drinks purchased at their establishments than at other bars and restaurants, leaving them at a competitive disadvantage.
Whether this tax on breweries becomes permanent remains to be seen, as various trade associations and advocacy groups, as well as some state legislators continue to voice their opposition. Unless the General Assembly passes legislation exempting direct-to-consumer sales at breweries from sales tax collection, or the Department of Revenue reconsiders its determination, breweries must begin complying with the new directive in the near future.
Pennsylvania has been in the brewery business for a long time, and its probably safe to say that however this latest tax issue turns out, the commonwealth will always have a showcase brewery industry. This isn't the first governor or General Assembly who has faced opposition to liquor tax and it won't be the last. In 1683, Gov. William Penn insisted on low taxes on cider and liquor. When it came time to review those taxes, he faced such strong resistance to even the low rate that he agreed to suspend all taxes for a year. In Pennsylvania, government and beer makers have co-existed for centuries, sometimes in harmony and sometimes at odds. It will certainly be interesting to watch this issue unfold.
Alexandra “Sasha” Sacavage focuses her practice at McNees Wallace & Nurick on litigation matters pertaining to food and beverage, government services, white collar defense and eSports. She previously served as legal counsel to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Democratic Caucus, legal counsel to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and enforcement counsel to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in Harrisburg.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/38/82/ff7b611443519b770a19692401f4/weilheimer-neary-henry-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
![The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal' The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/01/Philadelphia-City-Hall-08-767x633.jpg)
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute read![Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ba/3b/495247be47fe8b0ba5fcd60e024b/citizens-bank-sign-767x633.jpg)
Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute read![Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/399/2024/07/18-wheeler-semi-truck-767x633.jpg)
Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1With DEI Top of Mind, Black Judges Discuss Growing Up During Segregation, Efforts to Diversify the Profession
- 2Big Law's Middle East Bet: Will It Pay Off?
- 3'Translate Across Disciplines': Paul Hastings’ New Tech Transactions Leader
- 4Milbank’s Revenue and Profits Surge Following Demand Increases Across the Board
- 5Fourth Quarter Growth in Demand and Worked Rates Coincided with Countercyclical Dip, New Report Indicates
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250