www.alkoholpolitik.ch

Last month the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that flavored malt beverages, also known as alcopops, are distilled spirits and should be classified and taxed as such, instead of the beer tax rate the state has been using. The ruling meant 12 times more alcopops tax revenue for the budget-beleaguered state, and less access to alcopops for youth, whom producers target with these products.

A ruling like that should have policymakers celebrating, wouldn’t you think? After all, their responsibility is to serve the health and welfare of the public they represent, along with keeping a balanced budget for the state. Or is it? Just one month after the ruling, state legislators effectively overturned the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision with LB 824. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman approved the legislation April 6. The new law keeps the status quo intact: taxing alcopops at the beer rate and keeping the products available wherever beer is sold. …

It’s no surprise to see certain legislators going out of their way to please the powerful alcohol industry lobby at the expense of the communities they are supposed to represent. However, we don’t often see a legislature deliberately override the state supreme court in order to make alcohol companies happy. Welcome to the Doghouse, Nebraska Legislature and Governor Heineman.
(Source: Alcohol Justice, 04/17/12)

The Appellate Body, on 21 December 2011, issued its reports in the case “Philippines — Taxes on Distilled Spirits” (WT/DS396/AB/R and WT/DS403/AB/R).
> Appellate Body Report: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news11_e/396_403abr_e.htm

The WTO, on 15 August 2011, issued the report of the panel that had examined complaints by the European Union and the United States regarding “Philippines – Taxes on distilled spirits” (DS396 and DS403). Panel report

In a recent victory in Nebraska, the Lancaster County District Court ruled in favor of the public health by declaring alcopops to be distilled spirits rather than beer for taxation purposes. As spirits, alcopops will be subject to a higher tax rate, which is shown to reduce consumption of these dangerous drinks while also raising much-needed funds for alcohol treatment programs. (Source: Marin Institute, 02/16/11) see also Join Together, 02/24/11

The map from Strange Maps, shows Europe’s three ‘alcohol belts.’ The northernmost belt is for distilled spirits, the middle belt is for beer, and the southernmost belt is for wine. (Source: Google Alcohol News, 11/15/10)

Fresh Story Blog: Despite the fact that local, state, and federal lawmakers are desperate to plug holes in their budgets, advocates of alcohol taxes have struggled to gain traction. They should take heart from a Fresh Story blog post, the first in a series, published online on Aug. 31.
It’s an excellent primer on the history of federal alcohol taxes and why it makes sense to raise them now.
Taxes on alcohol have a long history in the United States. In fact, according to Fresh Story, “the first tax ever enacted by the U.S. Congress was a tax on distilled spirits … in 1791.” While they now contribute less than 1% of federal revenue, taxes on alcohol used to contribute a significant portion of federal revenue — 11% as recently as 1941. (Source: Join Together, 9/14/10) Sep 14, 2010 04:21 PM CDT by Benjamin Chambers

The European Union, being the Philippines‘ 4th largest trading partner, has requested the establishment of a WTO panel on the Philippines‘ excise tax regime on distilled spirits. The European Union considers that this regime discriminates against imported spirits and is thereby in clear breach of international trade rules. The EU has raised the issue with the Philippines repeatedly over the past years without success and WTO consultations held with the Philippines in Manila on 8 October 2009 failed to lead to a satisfactory solution.
European Trade Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said: „Unfortunately, WTO consultations have not indicated any clear prospect of a possible remedy to this longstanding tax discrimination against imported spirits. Therefore, the EU has no other option than requesting a WTO panel to rule on this issue. We are convinced the EU will prevail in what is a clear case of tax discrimination but we still hope the Philippine Government would remedy the situation without waiting for the completion of WTO dispute settlement procedures“. European industry has raised concerns since the introduction of a new Excise Tax Regime in the Philippines in 1997.
Those concerns became more serious as discrimination against imported spirits aggravated with subsequent reforms of this regime, notably with the introduction of new legislation in 2004. This has had a significant impact on exports of EU spirits to the Philippine market. More specifically, it is estimated that, from 2004 to 2007, EU exports of spirits to the Philippines have more than halved (from around €37 million to €18 million).
(Source: Eurocare Newsletter December 09-January 10) Comment: WTO protects the industry instead of the people. Let’s hope the consumption went down.