200gal limit

SSBrew - 728
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.
B

bahomebrew

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Hey gang,

This is my first post here, so hopefully I'm in the right sub-forum. I have been researching a freeze condensation product but it led me to some interesting legalese about homebrewing in general. I knew about the 200gal limit, but the way the CA law reads, it says "the aggregate amount of beer or wine is 200gal". Now if it said beer and wine, I would think that 200gal is the absolute amount, but it says beer or wine which makes me think I can brew 400gal total, neither wine or beer exceeding 200gal. It never occurred to me to research this and only seeing the legalese made me ponder, so I'm wondering how y'all read it and operate.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrewing-rights/statutes/california/

The specific language is in section 23356.2, a couple paragraphs down.
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet.

I think the key word in this case is "aggregate", which, used as a noun, means "a combination of things", or, used as a verb, means "to combine".

I would interpret the line quoted in the OP to mean "any combination of beer or wine", which would mean 200 gallons total between the two.

As always, YMMV, not valid in all 50 states, call before midnight and we'll double your offer, just pay a separate handling fee equal to twice the original price, etc.
 
Thanks for the reply, grampamark! I appreciate the disclaimer. I also am not a lawyer, and just hope to hear what people are doing in their own homebrewing setups. Are you brewing 200gal combined of beer and wine in a year? I know I don't. To be fair, I've never come close to brewing 200 gallons of beer or wine, let alone 400 gallons of both, so it's mostly an academic consideration that has me curious(probably did closer to 50 or 60 this year).

Aggregate could mean a combination of gallons brewed at various times over the year totalling but not to exceed 200gal. I'm intrigued and I think that most sources take the 200 total gallons interpretation, but I think the word "or" is legally important. Any combination of beer "and" wine would indicate that the two together could not exceed 200gal, but beer "or" wine indicates that the two are separate entities and measured separately i.e. the aggregate amount of beer cannot equal 200gal or the aggregate amount of wine cannot exceed 200gal, erego the aggregate amount of beer and wine cannot exceed 400gal with no more than 200gal of either produced.
 
I am a lawyer, but not licensed in California. Still, it makes more sense to read the statute itself than to read a summary of same:

§ 23356.2. Beer; manufacture for personal or family use; exemption

(a) No license or permit shall be required for the manufacture of beer or wine for personal or family use, and not for sale, by a person over 21 years of age. The aggregate amount of beer or wine with respect to any household shall not exceed (1) 100 gallons per calendar year if there is only one adult in the household or (2) 200 gallons per calendar year if there are two or more adults in the household.

I read that to say the aggregate of beer OR the aggregate of wine may not exceed 200 gallons per two person household per year. It would say beer AND wine if they wanted the limit to cover both.

My advice is worth every penny you paid for it!
 
§ 23356.2. Beer; manufacture for personal or family use; exemption

(a) No license or permit shall be required for the manufacture of beer or wine for personal or family use, and not for sale, by a person over 21 years of age. The aggregate amount of beer or wine with respect to any household shall not exceed (1) 100 gallons per calendar year if there is only one adult in the household or (2) 200 gallons per calendar year if there are two or more adults in the household.

It's remarkable how many things are so poorly written. To add to what whovous already said...

If I were arguing 'for the prosecution' I'd point out that it must be referring to beer and wine combined. Yes, there is some ambiguity in the use of or, but that ambiguity is cleared up by the (quite salient) use of the word aggregate, which only applies if you're talking about wine and beer in combination. As whovous pointed out, that word could also be referring to a combination of batches of potentially just one of those things, but I'd argue that's not a reasonable interpretation since reaching 200 g in one batch at the homebrew level is not a possibility in the first place. So aggregate must be referring to the combination of beer and wine. Back to the ambiguity of 'or' in English...I'd also argue that if 'or' was meant in the sense of one or the other, then the word 'either' would have been inserted ("...either beer or wine"). But it wasn't--so again, it must mean and. Finally, I'd say that if 'or' truly meant 'or' as in 'either or', then the statute would mean that one cannot make both beer and wine in their house in the same year (they must choose either beer or wine), which is both bizarre and not mentioned anywhere else. So, again, it must mean 'and'.

If I were arguing 'for the defense' I'd simply point out that the prosecutor just pathetically tried to argue that 'or' does not in fact mean 'or' but instead means 'and' and rest my case.
 
I think the OR there is just meant to include winemakers and brewers both in the statue (and cidermakers, and meadmakers, etc). Many brewers don't make wine, and many winemakers don't make beer. So by using aggregate and "or", it is meant to cover all of them. But it is poorly written, and could be interpreted either way.

However, since the federal limit is 100 gallons per adult per household, up to 200 gallons at a max, it would seem to have to follow that federal limit anyway.
 
Interesting. One could argue this either way dependent on your reading.

Another interesting note is that while apparently concerned about "following the rules", no mention by others that "freeze condensing" hasn't been mentioned as "distillation" in Federal interpretation of laws regulating the production of distilled products.
 
Jag75 said:
It's funny they want to limit how much you make for personal consumption, however you can buy all the commercial alcohol you want during a callander year .
Click to expand...
and pay the appropriate taxes when you make those purchases. it's all about revenue tax monies, and nothing more
 
Jag75 said:
It's funny they want to limit how much you make for personal consumption, however you can buy all the commercial alcohol you want during a callander year .
Click to expand...

How many people are even coming close to brewing 200gallons for their own personal consumption in a year anyway? If you're doing 5 gallon batches thats brewing one nearly every week all year long
 
BSheridan said:
How many people are even coming close to brewing 200gallons for their own personal consumption in a year anyway? If you're doing 5 gallon batches thats brewing one nearly every week all year long
Click to expand...
One of the guys in my club brews about 25 gal at a time (he gives a lot away.) I suspect he might bump up against the limit. But I, and I'm sure most homebrewers, don't get anywhere near 200 gal/yr.

Brew on :mug:
 
I get very close to the limit, but of course, I never go over it;).

With ten or twelve gallon batches and frequent back to back brew days, one can easily approach or go over that maximum.

I'm curious if the feds have ever busted a home brewer for brewing more than the limit, and if so, how do they go about proving this. I drank the evidence.
 
tll77 said:
I get very close to the limit, but of course, I never go over it;).

With ten or twelve gallon batches and frequent back to back brew days, one can easily approach or go over that maximum.

I'm curious if the feds have ever busted a home brewer for brewing more than the limit, and if so, how do they go about proving this. I drank the evidence.
Click to expand...

Haha , so true . It's just a way they try and have a say so in people's lives . If your brewing a ton and selling it , putting yourself out there then yeah they will take notice but not because of the amount. It will be because of license and permits aka tax revenue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxStout said:
Beer: 100 gal/calendar year if one adult in household, 200 gal/calendar year if 2 or more adults in household. 27 CFR 25.205

Wine: same limits. 27 CFR 24.75

That's a LOT of beer and wine, but there are probably a few people going over that amount.
Click to expand...
Good references. Mead and cider are not mentioned in either. Anyone know how they are categorized?

Brew on :mug:
 
doug293cz said:
Good references. Mead and cider are not mentioned in either. Anyone know how they are categorized?

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...

I think it's classified as wine.

Edit: I thought of something cool for those brewers who might want to produce a lot of homebrew in a year. If I am interpreting the language of the two statutes correctly, an individual should be able to legally produce--for personal use--100 gallons of beer AND 100 gallons of wine in a calendar year. And if there are 2 or more adults in the household, 200 gallons of each. Each statute appears mutually exclusive, in that each pertains to one beverage, with no mention of the other. Thus, 27 CFR 25.205 only refers to beer, and 27 CFR 24.75 only refers to wine (which I believe also encompasses mead and cider, though it's not specifically stated in the language). Neither statute reduces the allowable amount of its referenced beverage based on any production of the other. IOW, the beer statute does not limit based on wine production, and vice-versa.
 
Last edited:
Jeeze, relax and have a homebrew! With all the crime going on, do you really think anyone is going to show up with a search warrant and measure all the homebrew in your house? Even if they do, the chance of you being over the limit is pretty slim.
 
Unless you try to outright sell your beer/wine/moonshine or get into the habit of hosting parties where you charge for entry then serve free alcohol, you are unlikely to rise to the level of interest to your local law enforcement.
 
Thanks everyone for chiming in! Some salient points there to latch onto. It doesn't seem like many are even close to the 200gal limit so a completely moot argument, but I'm glad everyone was willing to play along. Probably the points that make the most sense - no ones coming after a homebrewer unless they are doing something other than brewing their beer, and relax, have a home brew. Thanks @jack13 for breaking it down so succinctly, the defense had me cracking up.
 
"If I were arguing 'for the defense' I'd simply point out that the prosecutor just pathetically tried to argue that 'or' does not in fact mean 'or' but instead means 'and' and rest my case."

Exactly. Clearly one could drive a legal tractor-trailer right through that regulation.
Words actually do matter...

Cheers!
 
While I'm sure there are homebrewers out there that do brew that much or more - no one will admit it publicly, and you'd have to be doing something really stupid to get enough attention from law enforcement to get them interested. I suppose if I maxed out all my fermenters, I could get something like 40+ gallons at a time (4 ale pails, 4 6.5gal carboys plus a 5gal carboy.) That's a week plus of work - I guess if I was seriously working on my own brewery, I'd brew that much, but I'd be looking at 1 gallon batches to test things out.
In any case, if I was reading that and wanting to make sure I'm within the law, I'd say it was combined beer and wine. If I was REALLY interested, I'd think about contacting a lawyer, law enforcement or law maker and see what they had to say.
 
As a 5 gallon brewer (6-7 gal per batch if you want to be a wang about it) I'd have to brew a lot more often than my usual every other Sunday to breach the 200gal limit in a 12 month period; IMHO this is actually pretty generous on the part of the federal government. Between the beer I give away, the parties I furnish and/or host, not to mention the copious quantities I drink myself, 200gal per year lets me enjoy my hobby to the fullest without worry. That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to exceed the limit, and even augment it with the output from my pot still. Laws are made to be broken, and so long as you're not discharging a firearm or starving grannies, more power to ya.
 
tll77 said:
I get very close to the limit, but of course, I never go over it;).

With ten or twelve gallon batches and frequent back to back brew days, one can easily approach or go over that maximum.

I'm curious if the feds have ever busted a home brewer for brewing more than the limit, and if so, how do they go about proving this. I drank the evidence.
Click to expand...

Make also sure you burn all receipts for malt purchases. From the amount of malt consumed one can derive an average amount of beer brewed. FYI in Europe historically malt was taxed and only in later times was this tax replaced with an actual tax on beer brewed.
 
Do you hear the black helicopters coming?
Sorry, stupid question. Of course you can't hear them until it's too late... :D
 
I've been brewing for 15+ years (all the alcohol makes my memory foggy)
Anyway, the law doesn't say you have to CONSUME all the booze you make in a year. (or maybe it does?) So I could have 1500 gallons of home brew stockpiled, waiting for the zombie apocalypse. Basically, the 100 gallon yearly limit isn't enforceable.
 
In all the posts for this topic, I haven't yet seen one that implies anyone is worried about getting caught. Rather, it's simply a discussion of homebrewing laws since we're, you know, homebrewers.

Just felt like a good time to say that.

But now I'm picturing the coppers smashing my glass fermenters with sledgehammers, burning my grains, and dumping by hops and yeast down the toilet, prohibition-style.
 
madscientist451 said:
I've been brewing for 15+ years (all the alcohol makes my memory foggy)
Anyway, the law doesn't say you have to CONSUME all the booze you make in a year. (or maybe it does?) So I could have 1500 gallons of home brew stockpiled, waiting for the zombie apocalypse. Basically, the 100 gallon yearly limit isn't enforceable.
Click to expand...

I think the cops will make the assumption that whatever you have stockpiled will have been produced within the last 12 months and there's a good chance any court will consider this assumption to be reasonable.
On a side note (apropo getting caught with illegal liquor) in Germany it's quite easy to get a license to run your own still, which might explain while there's a lot of low quality liquor going around as any incompetent idiot can and will easily get licensed.
But, if you were to be caught with an unlicensed still, you will be taxed on the presumption that you have run it once per day at nominal capacity 365 days/year. It doesn't matter even if you could prove that the still had never actually been fired up and just sat in your living room, you'll be charged the maximum amount and there is no chance of appeal whatsoever.
 
The law is about production, so they'd have to prove you produced more than the legal limit.

If they found 300 gallons they cannot simply make the assumption it was all produced in the last year; they'd have to prove it.

That's assuming you can affored a lawyer. If not, all bets are off. OK, I'm exaggerating, but not nearly as much as I wish I were.
 
While it's true that all of the authorities, at every level, have bigger fish to fry than an individual homebrewer's annual output, one shouldn't underestimate the headache which could be created by the combination of a nosy neighbor and a local cop who was the kid who got the soap shoved up his ass in the shower after 7th grade gym class.

Just sayin'...
 
Ok, I am also a Lawyer. I practice Criminal Defense at the State and Federal Level. Here are the realities. the words "or" and "and" are taken literally. Or means either, and means both.

Reality, there is no AUSA or ASA that I know that would waste there time over the 200 gallon limit. in fact most would be more interested in drinking your beer. In Fact many of them would not admit it here, but many are home-brewers.

I believe the purpose of the Statute is prevent a professional brewer to claim he is a home-brewer and therefore exempt from the Taxes and regulations.

As stated above, proving the quantity would be difficult and expensive. The ATF agents I know would laugh at this debate.

Relax and brew my friend, if the ATF shows up at the house offer him/her some good beer.

in no way should this be considered legal advice.
 
Beer or Wine is inclusive to the words aggregate of. Thus intends no more than 200 gallons of the combination.

As to what is meant to be included as beer or wine, you have to go back to the definitions. For example, there is usually an upper limit to alcohol content in the definition of beer, after which if exceed it therefore becomes defined as either a wine, or a spirit.
 
Last edited:
FleEsq said:
I believe the purpose of the Statute is prevent a professional brewer to claim he is a home-brewer and therefore exempt from the Taxes and regulations..
Click to expand...

I would think the actual act of selling the beer would qualify a brewer as "professional" (i.e. brewing to make a profit) as opposed to "amateur" (i.e. for the fun of it and, of course, for the beer you get to drink at the end of the process, even if sharing with family and friends) irrespective of quantity.
 

Similar threads

D
I broke a lot of rules
Replies
34
Views
2K
beren
beren
B
Sparkling Wines & Carbonation
Replies
2
Views
3K
ShellinTX
ShellinTX
M
"For the love of god ... !" - Homebrew platitudes that grind your gears
Replies
30
Views
2K
geezerpk
geezerpk
CallMeKiupid
Kiupid's Mead Guide for Beginners (like me)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Barzahl
B
Skåldy
A Hobby Obsessed Vet
Replies
6
Views
921
IslandLizard
IslandLizard

Latest posts

Back
Top