Legal?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Any lawyer worth his/her salt will rip that CA language to threads. Where is the legal definition for most of what they are saying? What constitutes a "tasting," anyway? Pretty sure if I drink a beer I am tasting it. Pretty sure that an "organized affair" could be me calling my buddy and saying to come over, or vice versa. If he randomly showed up, that might be a different story.
 
Any lawyer worth his/her salt will rip that CA language to threads. Where is the legal definition for most of what they are saying? What constitutes a "tasting," anyway? Pretty sure if I drink a beer I am tasting it. Pretty sure that an "organized affair" could be me calling my buddy and saying to come over, or vice versa. If he randomly showed up, that might be a different story.

I am sure the ABC knows that. That is why if they can get away WITHOUT enforcing the law then they will. Their limited budget is directly funded by revenue from alcohol licensing and licensee fines. They receive no money from homebrewers so they don't really want to deal with them. I am participating in a "tasting/organized affair" in a few weeks along with some commerical breweries and other home breweries. It is just such a grey area we are just rolling with it.....
 
jefferym09 said:
Well if i cant remove my homebrew from my house then i MAY HAVE broken that rule plenty of times already. i know theres not much chance they would find out. but i also figure it would be good to get my liquor license at some point anyway, prob not anytime soon if it really is a pain in the ass to get.

It's more than just a pain in the ass. In most states (including, I believe, California), you need to hold lease on a dedicated commercial property before you can even apply.
 
It's more than just a pain in the ass. In most states (including, I believe, California), you need to hold lease on a dedicated commercial property before you can even apply.

That is the fed requirement before you even get to state stuff. And to sell homebrew you need a federal brewing license plus whatever your state requires. Not just a liquor license
 
Any lawyer worth his/her salt will rip that CA language to threads. Where is the legal definition for most of what they are saying? What constitutes a "tasting," anyway? Pretty sure if I drink a beer I am tasting it. Pretty sure that an "organized affair" could be me calling my buddy and saying to come over, or vice versa. If he randomly showed up, that might be a different story.

The problem is that YOU have to pay the lawyer ($$$ cha-ching!!).

The other side has taxpayer-funded lawyers, investigators, etc. who can spend as little or as much time as they like going after you. And, especially in CA, you never know what kind of judge you may end up in front of.
 
Why not just give him the beer as a wedding present -- what he does with it after that will be his problem (providing you are allowed to gift it by law).
As is previously stated in here, receiving any money or goods in return for your beer, no matter how convoluted your scheme, is illegal.
Also, not only may the Feds be monitoring this site, some may even be members.
 
don't need a human to crawl these sites, just need one to release the spiders

I worked for the S&T division at ATF HQ back in the 90s. there are no stupid people working there

well... not anymore
 
don't need a human to crawl these sites, just need one to release the spiders

I worked for the S&T division at ATF HQ back in the 90s. there are no stupid people working there

well... not anymore

I am sure they could but really why would they? I am sure they have much better things to do. I can't believe they would spend the time to investigate what someone said on an internet forum. What if someone was just spouting off lies? Sure if it was an issue of national security or potential violence I could see them checking up on it. But homebrewing?? Really?? Actually it would be fun to play a little game...openly talk about selling homebrew and play it up like you really do all over various homebrew forums. But don't do it. See if anyone takes the bait.
 
I am sure they could but really why would they? I am sure they have much better things to do. I can't believe they would spend the time to investigate what someone said on an internet forum. What if someone was just spouting off lies? Sure if it was an issue of national security or potential violence I could see them checking up on it. But homebrewing?? Really?? Actually it would be fun to play a little game...openly talk about selling homebrew and play it up like you really do all over various homebrew forums. But don't do it. See if anyone takes the bait.

because they don't chase down moonshiners at all.

it's only partially about someone doing something illegal. it's ALL about Uncle Sam not getting his cut.
 
I am sure they could but really why would they? I am sure they have much better things to do. I can't believe they would spend the time to investigate what someone said on an internet forum. What if someone was just spouting off lies? Sure if it was an issue of national security or potential violence I could see them checking up on it. But homebrewing?? Really?? Actually it would be fun to play a little game...openly talk about selling homebrew and play it up like you really do all over various homebrew forums. But don't do it. See if anyone takes the bait.
Yeah, because getting investigated for possible tax, liquor license, and who knows what other violations sounds EXACTLY like how I want to spend the next month of my life. Remind me never to go to one of your parties if that sounds "fun" to you.
 
sarcasm is lost in a textual medium

I've always wondered why people who know this then persist on being sarcastic in a textual medium. ;)

my point to the post that "they wouldn't bother chasing down a homebrewer" that, yes, they do indeed chase down tax evaders

If it's as simple as that, why haven't they chased down homebrewers?
 
A. you take the beer to the wedding.
B. someone lets slip it's homebrew.
C. someone get sick, dui, slips and falls.
D. law suit blaming the hotel, groom, brewer.
E. even tho lawsuit is dropped, prosecutor arrests homebrewer for some infraction.

No one even had to post or troll in this forum, and I think everyone can see how this is a bit too possible. Many close friends wouldn't push this to far, but a wedding is usually open up to a few more people, kids, aunts, etc.
 
I've always wondered why people who know this then persist on being sarcastic in a textual medium. ;)



If it's as simple as that, why haven't they chased down homebrewers?

just because we haven't heard of any doesn't mean there aren't any


and I'm sarcastic in all media, it's my nature
 
just because we haven't heard of any doesn't mean there aren't any

So your claim is that Uncle Sam is eager to chase down homebrewers for tax revenues and your evidence is that we can't say for sure it hasn't happened? Can't say I follow that, but perhaps I don't need to. :tank:
 
I am sure they could but really why would they? I am sure they have much better things to do. .

Not saying they do, but it isn't really that much work. Set a search engine to crawl popular sites (Most goverment agencies have several, i.e. Autonomy, Google, FAST) and set up a few rules to look for specific things.

Agent is sent an email once a day with top 10 or so links.

Like I said, not saying they do, but it wouldn't be hard
 
So your claim is that Uncle Sam is eager to chase down homebrewers for tax revenues and your evidence is that we can't say for sure it hasn't happened? Can't say I follow that, but perhaps I don't need to. :tank:

never said they were eager, or that they did at all, only that just because we've never heard of it happening that doesn't mean it has never happened
 
Every time this topic comes up, I love all the people who think they can come up with a crafty way to make the transaction not technically a "sale". Pretty bottles, coincidental gifts, markup on ingredients...

This is not how our legal system works.

As someone who practiced law for almost 25 years before becoming disabled, you are incorrect; this is exactly how our legal system works. Lawyers, businessmen, and such, always look for loopholes. Statutory definitions are the best way. For example, how does a statute prohibiting the sale of some product define "sale," or "compensation." If whatever you do does not meet the definition of a "sale" in the statute, it is not a sale and is not prohibited - at least by that statute. Does that mean that sales disguised as something else would be legal? No, particularly blatant examples such as pretending you are selling the bottle and not the beer inside.

As a concrete example, here in Oregon, ORS 471.401 provides that a license is required to brew alcoholic beverages. Subsection (4) of that statute provides the following exception: "A person may make homemade beer, wine and fermented fruit juice as authorized under ORS 471.037. A person may provide assistance to another in making the homemade beer, wine or fermented fruit juice, if the person does not receive financial consideration as defined in ORS 471.037 for providing the assistance."

You then have to look at ORS 471.037 to determine what constitutes "financial consideration." "Financial consideration" is defined as "value that is given or received directly or indirectly through sales, barter, trade, fees, charges, dues, contributions or donations," but there are a number of enumerated exceptions, including "eer, wine or fermented fruit juice ingredients." ORS 471.037(1)(B)(v). Therefore, in Oregon brewing for another person in exchange for ingredients would not be illegal. Oregon law also provides that the Liquor Control Act does not apply to beer made for "noncommercial" purposes. The definition of "noncommercial" is tied to "financial consideration." The Act also does not apply to "the noncommercial consumption at any location of homemade beer, wine or fermented fruit juice." Therefore, under Oregon law, a homebrewer could brew beer to be consumed off-site at a wedding in exchange for ingredients without violating the law. The issue of the premises liquor license being effected is another question.

Lesson - it is important to read the exact language of the law at issue. (And this is not intended as legal advice; I am not your lawyer; I am not even a licensed lawyer anymore.)
 
sarcasm is lost in a textual medium

my point to the post that "they wouldn't bother chasing down a homebrewer" that, yes, they do indeed chase down tax evaders

You are right they do chase down tax evaders. It is much easier for them to audit commericial breweries though an audit than to try an go after homebrewers. They can enter any commercial brewery at any time...heck for them to even step on my property they need a search warrant signed by a judge. Good luck with that one...:rolleyes::

Guys....I don't agree with breaking the law!! But c'mon the government is not coming after any homebrewer anymore than the boogyman is!!
 
As someone who practiced law for almost 25 years before becoming disabled, you are incorrect; this is exactly how our legal system works. Lawyers, businessmen, and such, always look for loopholes. Statutory definitions are the best way. For example, how does a statute prohibiting the sale of some product define "sale," or "compensation." If whatever you do does not meet the definition of a "sale" in the statute, it is not a sale and is not prohibited - at least by that statute. Does that mean that sales disguised as something else would be legal? No, particularly blatant examples such as pretending you are selling the bottle and not the beer inside.

As a concrete example, here in Oregon, ORS 471.401 provides that a license is required to brew alcoholic beverages. Subsection (4) of that statute provides the following exception: "A person may make homemade beer, wine and fermented fruit juice as authorized under ORS 471.037. A person may provide assistance to another in making the homemade beer, wine or fermented fruit juice, if the person does not receive financial consideration as defined in ORS 471.037 for providing the assistance."

You then have to look at ORS 471.037 to determine what constitutes "financial consideration." "Financial consideration" is defined as "value that is given or received directly or indirectly through sales, barter, trade, fees, charges, dues, contributions or donations," but there are a number of enumerated exceptions, including "eer, wine or fermented fruit juice ingredients." ORS 471.037(1)(B)(v). Therefore, in Oregon brewing for another person in exchange for ingredients would not be illegal. Oregon law also provides that the Liquor Control Act does not apply to beer made for "noncommercial" purposes. The definition of "noncommercial" is tied to "financial consideration." The Act also does not apply to "the noncommercial consumption at any location of homemade beer, wine or fermented fruit juice." Therefore, under Oregon law, a homebrewer could brew beer to be consumed off-site at a wedding in exchange for ingredients without violating the law. The issue of the premises liquor license being effected is another question.

Lesson - it is important to read the exact language of the law at issue. (And this is not intended as legal advice; I am not your lawyer; I am not even a licensed lawyer anymore.)


I've read your post several times now, and I'm not sure how it's a response to anything I've said (in the quoted post or in any other). Your point seems to be that transactions of ingredients are in Oregon an enumerated exception to otherwise broad prohibitions on homebrew barter. Great. So what? The OP asked if it was legal to get paid for his homebrew; people started suggesting that he sell empty bottles that just happen to not be empty. I said that doesn't work, and you just said so much yourself. Crafty disguises don't make something not a sale. What in my post are you objecting to?

Lesson - it's important to read the exact language of the posts at issue. ;)
 
These threads are so much fun!

Regarding authorities following the forum, count me among those who would be shocked if they aren't. You don't have to be paying much attention to see more and more people running into consequences when employers, police, etc, discover information online. Yes, odds are low, but just because you're online doesn't make it any better an idea to publicly declare plans to break the law. Even if a sting is extremely unlikely, if something bad *does* go down, things that make it look like you knowingly decided to act illegally aren't goin to do you any favors...

As someone who practiced law for almost 25 years before becoming disabled, you are incorrect; this is exactly how our legal system works. Lawyers, businessmen, and such, always look for loopholes. Statutory definitions are the best way. For example, how does a statute prohibiting the sale of some product define "sale," or "compensation." If whatever you do does not meet the definition of a "sale" in the statute, it is not a sale and is not prohibited - at least by that statute. Does that mean that sales disguised as something else would be legal? No, particularly blatant examples such as pretending you are selling the bottle and not the beer inside.

The last part of this paragraph is the kicker, though. "Blatant examples" are a matter of degree, and even legal professionals don't always agree on where lines are drawn. It's not true that every noun in every statute is always fully defined; sometimes this is legally significant, sometimes it is not. When your plans are this obviously contrary to the intent of a law, it is pretty unwise to play the odds.

For example, the tasting "loophole" is one that I wouldn't try to poke my finger through. While it may not be defined explicitly, reasonable people have a fairly clear idea of what constitutes a tasting. If you modified your wedding format to match one of these, you might be able to get away with it, but I don't think a court would have a hard time deciding that a standard wedding with the word "tasting" pasted on the invitation wasn't one.

You *might* be able to weasel your way into that, but it's going to cost you an awful lot, which I doubt you'd be compensated for just as a matter of having won your case.
 
I've read your post several times now, and I'm not sure how it's a response to anything I've said (in the quoted post or in any other). Your point seems to be that transactions of ingredients are in Oregon an enumerated exception to otherwise broad prohibitions on homebrew barter. Great. So what? The OP asked if it was legal to get paid for his homebrew; people started suggesting that he sell empty bottles that just happen to not be empty. I said that doesn't work, and you just said so much yourself. Crafty disguises don't make something not a sale. What in my post are you objecting to?

Lesson - it's important to read the exact language of the posts at issue. ;)

I did read the exact language of your post and was only really disagreeing with your assertion that that's not the way our legal system works. I thought it would be obvious what I was disagreeing with when I stated that "this is exactly how it works in our legal system."

As a general rule, if something is not prohibited it is allowed. If a statute only prohibited the sale for financial consideration and financial consideration or sale weren't defined to include things like barter, then, at least arguably, exchanging your brew through bartering would not be prohibited.

Now, I do agree with you that most of the examples of ways to get around the statute thrown out by other posters are merely disguised sales and would not expect them to pass muster under a law prohibiting the sale of homebrew. I cited the example from Oregon's statutes because not everything that could be construed as a sale is necessarily prohibited as some were at least implying. Some asserted you couldn't brew beer for someone's wedding in exchange for them giving you ingredients, and that is not true, at least in Oregon.
 
These threads are so much fun!

Regarding authorities following the forum, count me among those who would be shocked if they aren't. You don't have to be paying much attention to see more and more people running into consequences when employers, police, etc, discover information online. Yes, odds are low, but just because you're online doesn't make it any better an idea to publicly declare plans to break the law. Even if a sting is extremely unlikely, if something bad *does* go down, things that make it look like you knowingly decided to act illegally aren't goin to do you any favors...



The last part of this paragraph is the kicker, though. "Blatant examples" are a matter of degree, and even legal professionals don't always agree on where lines are drawn. It's not true that every noun in every statute is always fully defined; sometimes this is legally significant, sometimes it is not. When your plans are this obviously contrary to the intent of a law, it is pretty unwise to play the odds.

For example, the tasting "loophole" is one that I wouldn't try to poke my finger through. While it may not be defined explicitly, reasonable people have a fairly clear idea of what constitutes a tasting. If you modified your wedding format to match one of these, you might be able to get away with it, but I don't think a court would have a hard time deciding that a standard wedding with the word "tasting" pasted on the invitation wasn't one.

You *might* be able to weasel your way into that, but it's going to cost you an awful lot, which I doubt you'd be compensated for just as a matter of having won your case.

You are correct that not every word in a statute is defined, but the actual wording of the statute in question is always the first step in analyzing a statute, After that, courts have well-developed rules for how you construe statutes. Some even have specific dictionaries they will use every time. You are also correct that people do not always agree on what a statute means or intends - that's one of the ways lawyers make a living, arguing about what it means. How far you may want to push your interpretation is going to depend a lot on your individual risk/benefit analysis.
 
DirtyOldDuck said:
I did read the exact language of your post and was only really disagreeing with your assertion that that's not the way our legal system works. I thought it would be obvious what I was disagreeing with when I stated that "this is exactly how it works in our legal system."

As a general rule, if something is not prohibited it is allowed. If a statute only prohibited the sale for financial consideration and financial consideration or sale weren't defined to include things like barter, then, at least arguably, exchanging your brew through bartering would not be prohibited.

Now, I do agree with you that most of the examples of ways to get around the statute thrown out by other posters are merely disguised sales and would not expect them to pass muster under a law prohibiting the sale of homebrew. I cited the example from Oregon's statutes because not everything that could be construed as a sale is necessarily prohibited as some were at least implying. Some asserted you couldn't brew beer for someone's wedding in exchange for them giving you ingredients, and that is not true, at least in Oregon.

I have no idea what you're responding to, but it sure isn't something I said.

When I said "This is not how our legal system works.", the "this" referred to what was described in my post...nothing more and nothing less. That's how deixis works. Leave it to a lawyer to spend a few hundred words obfuscating the meaning of "this". :D
 
You are correct that not every word in a statute is defined, but the actual wording of the statute in question is always the first step in analyzing a statute, After that, courts have well-developed rules for how you construe statutes. Some even have specific dictionaries they will use every time. You are also correct that people do not always agree on what a statute means or intends - that's one of the ways lawyers make a living, arguing about what it means. How far you may want to push your interpretation is going to depend a lot on your individual risk/benefit analysis.

I think you pretty much nailed it with your last statement, that it all boils down to a risk/benefit analysis. This applies to both sides. I will give my personal example. In CA homebrew may be removed from the home for "tastings". I know of homebrewers, including myself, who have poured homebrew at beer festivals. Now if you ask the ABC whether or not you can do this the answer "in most cases" is no. Since I work in local government I know the safest answer you can give is NO;) That releases you/your agency from liability since you didn't give permission. Basically unless is unilaterally allowed, it is prohibited. Now going back to the risk/benefit analysis a government agency just doesn't have the funds/manpower to deal with a problem as trivial as a homebrewer who pours some beer at a beer festival/tasting. My take is that they will say you can't do it but they aren't going to actively enforce it either and leave it at that.
 
...As a concrete example, here in Oregon, ORS 471.401 provides that a license is required to brew alcoholic beverages. Subsection (4) of that statute provides the following exception: "A person may make homemade beer, wine and fermented fruit juice as authorized under ORS 471.037. A person may provide assistance to another in making the homemade beer, wine or fermented fruit juice, if the person does not receive financial consideration as defined in ORS 471.037 for providing the assistance."
...

So I don't get how you got from providing assitance to someone else making homebrew to just plan old providing them homebrew. As far as I read it trading homebrew for ingredients is still ilegal in OG :D
 
How far you may want to push your interpretation is going to depend a lot on your individual risk/benefit analysis.

Yes, of course. In my opinion, though, there's really no reasonable risk/benefit analysis that says it's rational to spend any effort at all trying to construct a legal veneer. If it gets to the point that you're balancing your financial benefit against the cost of defending yourself, you've lost by orders of magnitude. The reasonable reason why someone might provide homebrew is that they're unlikely to get caught or prosecuted in the first place; there's no measurable benefit to spinning a tale about what you're really doing.
 
For example, the tasting "loophole" is one that I wouldn't try to poke my finger through. While it may not be defined explicitly, reasonable people have a fairly clear idea of what constitutes a tasting. If you modified your wedding format to match one of these, you might be able to get away with it, but I don't think a court would have a hard time deciding that a standard wedding with the word "tasting" pasted on the invitation wasn't one.

Why is competition and judging indicated separately in the wording? What is the definition of tasting in this context? Are they just repeating themselves for fun? Personally, I don't agree with you that there is a clear idea of what a tasting is, because they don't even seem to know; they're just throwing every possible "competition" word out there. In my opinion, tasting is not a competition. It is literally having someone sample your drink. What constitutes a sample? I think it depends on how much you want to give.
 
Why is competition and judging indicated separately in the wording? What is the definition of tasting in this context? Are they just repeating themselves for fun? Personally, I don't agree with you that there is a clear idea of what a tasting is, because they don't even seem to know; they're just throwing every possible "competition" word out there. In my opinion, tasting is not a competition. It is literally having someone sample your drink. What constitutes a sample? I think it depends on how much you want to give.

Exactly! I know I have poured at beer festivals where everyone gets a small taster glass. That sure sounds like it would be considered a "tasting" to me.
 
Back
Top