Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
05/03/2017 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Beer & Malt Beverages Tax by Britteny Cioni-haywood, Director, Div. of Economic Development, Dcced & Ken Alper, Director, Div. of Tax, Dor | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2017
3:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sam Kito, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Bryce Edgmon (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: BEER & MALT BEVERAGES TAX BY BRITTENY CIONI-
HAYWOOD~ DIRECTOR~ DIV. OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT~ DCCED & KEN
ALPER~ DIRECTOR~ DIV. OF TAX~ DOR
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BRITTENY CIONI-HAYWOOD, Director
Division of Economic Development
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation of Alaska's
brewing industry.
KEN ALPER, Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a PowerPoint presentation related
to small brewery exemption.
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on Alaska's beer and malt brewing tax.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:17:21 PM
CHAIR SAM KITO called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Representatives Birch,
Sullivan-Leonard, Stutes, Josephson, Wool, and Kito were present
at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION: BEER & MALT BEVERAGES TAX BY BRITTENY CIONI-
HAYWOOD, DIRECTOR, DIV. OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DCCED & KEN
ALPER, DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAX, DOR
PRESENTATION: BEER & MALT BEVERAGES TAX BY BRITTENY CIONI-
HAYWOOD, DIRECTOR, DIV. OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DCCED & KEN
ALPER, DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAX, DOR
3:18:10 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the only order of business would be a
Presentation on Beer & Malt Beverages Tax by Britteny Cioni-
Haywood, Director, Division of Economic Development, DCCED and
Ken Alper, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue (DOR).
3:19:12 PM
BRITTENY CIONI-HAYWOOD, Director, Division of Economic
Development, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED), offered a PowerPoint presentation [hardcopy
included in the committee packet], regarding "Alaska's Brewing
Industry." She specified that she would be talking about
breweries, not distilleries, during the presentation. Referring
to information on slide 2, she stated that the brewing industry
in Alaska brews, packages, and sells beer across the state, the
nation, and the world. She said the industry is considered a
basic economic sector. The industry is also considered a
secondary sector, which means it transforms raw materials into a
finished product.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD turned to slide 3, which displays statistics
provided by the national Brewers Association. She said the
slide shows that the overall market for beer is "flat"; however,
the market for craft, import, and export beers has seen an
increase in sales. In response to Representative Sullivan-
Leonard, she explained that "bbls" means barrels, and one barrel
comprises 31 gallons. In response to Representative Birch, she
offered her understanding that hard cider is not included in the
information within the presentation.
3:22:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his understanding that cider does
fall under "the same barrel taxing."
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD expressed the need to do further research to
confirm that information.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD directed attention to slide 4, which shows
production volume.
3:23:52 PM
CHAIR KITO, in response to Representative Birch, clarified that
the [circular chart] on slide 4 shows [2016 craft brewing
production volumes] for contract brewing companies,
microbreweries, brew pubs, and regional craft breweries.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD noted that at the bottom of slide 4 is a
graph, in which regional craft breweries are depicted in a blue-
green color; microbreweries are shown in a darker blue, [brew
pubs are in gold-brown, contract brewing companies are depicted
in red-brown, and the production information spans 2004-2016].
In response to Representative Birch, she said Alaskan Brewing
Company in Juneau, Alaska, would fall under the category of a
regional craft brewery, based on the volume it produces. She
said microbreweries produce under 15,000 bbls.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD drew attention to slide 5, which shows the
numbers the Brewers Association has for Alaska up to 2014. She
stated, "Some of the economic modeling that I've been told the
Brewers Association does on the national level can get a little
wonky when it comes to Alaska, because we don't have a lot of
economic data that they typically use." As shown on slide 5,
she said Alaska ranked forty-third in terms of economic impact,
at $239 million; however, when considering the impact per
capita, Alaska ranks fifth.
3:26:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said 27 craft breweries [in Alaska] seems
low, and he surmised that Ms. Cioni-Haywood must have more
updated information.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD confirmed she does - through 2015. She said
she spoke to "the guild" and found that Alaska currently has 39
breweries; however, perhaps only 30 are in production, while 9
are in the planning stage.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD turned to information on slide 6, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Sales of craft beer have more than tripled in Alaska
during the past 10 years from one million gallons to
3.6 million, and sales of locally-produced craft beer
increased more than fourfold during the same time
period.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD stated that of the 39 breweries currently in
Alaska: all but one are microbreweries that produce fewer than
15,000 bbls/year; 9 of the breweries are brew pubs that are
combined restaurant/breweries selling 25 percent of their beer
on site; and one is a regional brewery with production at
approximately 160,000 bbls/year.
3:28:07 PM
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD directed attention to slide 7, which shows
beverage manufacturing employment; the source is Alaska's
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD). She said
she thinks most of the numbers indicate craft breweries;
however, she cautioned that they could also include information
from distilleries and soda manufacturing. She said there was no
way to get any finer detail. Ms. Cioni-Haywood stated, "The
employment in this sector has grown every year since 2006.
Average monthly employment in the sector was 419 jobs, and then
average wages are around $2,700 per person, per month."
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD turned to slide 8 - information sourced from
the U.S. Department of Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau - which shows that as of the first quarter of 2017
there were 40 breweries [in Alaska], which she admitted is a
slight discrepancy compared to the aforementioned total. She
speculated that perhaps one has not "come to fruition." She
cautioned that the federal government usually pulls the
information from tax data, and Alaska does "not have that
necessarily." As shown on slide 8, she said from 2011 to 2015,
there has been a: 52 percent growth in breweries; 66 percent
growth in employment; 72 percent growth in wages; 33 percent
growth in production; and 27 percent growth in taxes collected
on beer qualifying for the reduced tax rate.
3:30:25 PM
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD turned to slide 9 - sourced from the Brewers
Guild of Alaska - which shows economic impact information for
2015, published in February 2016. It shows direct and indirect
impacts. She explained that direct spending is that which is
spent by a brewery on payroll, taxes, rent, and owner's income;
indirect spending includes money from "instate brewing
activities," for example, going to Costco or purchasing "a raw
input from a farmer." She said induced impacts mean when
employees spend their paychecks within the community. The slide
shows the following total impacts: full-time equivalent jobs,
[2,281.4]; business income, [$492,118,669]; payroll and owners'
income, [$96,313,690]; fees and taxes paid, [$35,568,630]; and
rents and dividends paid, [$37,204,577]. She reported that the
total economic impact by the brewery sector is approximately
$169 million. The percent retained in Alaska is approximately
34 percent.
3:31:59 PM
CHAIR KITO asked Ms. Cioni-Haywood if she has any idea "what the
fees paid would be."
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD said she could check the study to find out if
that information is referenced there.
3:32:41 PM
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD continued with the PowerPoint, to slide 10,
which shows two on-line articles related to the brewing
industry. She mentioned the Bourbon Trail in Kentucky and the
idea of tourist attractions [related to brewing]. She said,
"The Alaska brand is strong through other marketing outlets,
such as [the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute] (ASMI) and
Alaska tourism, and this is just another option where we can
play off onto that strong branding and appeal to audiences
outside of the U.S." She indicated this is good for the
economy.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD turned to slide 11, regarding export
potential. She said the industry manufactures value-added
products that offer an opportunity for export to national and
international markets. She indicated that the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED) and the
University of Alaska Center for Economic Development produced a
study last year related to export opportunities for Alaska
distilleries and breweries. The study detailed four foreign
markets: Canada, China, Germany, and South Korea. The study
showed that Canada, China, and South Korea scored highest as
export markets for Alaska beer; the study was based on consumer
trends within those countries and took into account trading
pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and what tariffs might be on the products; millennials are among
the most important consumption groups in each country; and
millennials have driven the market growth of craft beer and
liquor in the US, as well.
3:35:36 PM
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD explained that the purpose of [the study] was
to provide small, fast-growing producers with useful information
about the aforementioned countries. She said U.S. Commercial
Services reopened its office in Alaska about a year ago; it is
focused on exporting Alaska products. She said it is a federal
agency located in Anchorage. She indicated that the Division of
Economic Development has conversed with U.S. Commercial Services
to get these products [exported]. She said there are several
distilleries reaching the point where they are considering the
export of their products, nationally and internationally. Ms.
Cioni-Haywood concluded by stating that the emerging brewing
industry comprises small, start-up firms, and she emphasized its
export potential.
3:36:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if there are other [breweries] in
Alaska, beside the Alaskan Brewing Company, that export.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD said she would ask the Alaska Guild and return
with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his understanding that "that's the
only one." He said he does not know if "they go outside of the
U.S. and into the world."
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD responded, "My guess might be Canada."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Cioni-Haywood if she knows much
about "the tasting room law."
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD answered, "A little bit."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL explained that in 2006, a law went into
place, which allowed breweries to be manufacturer, distributer,
and retailer on premises, which he surmised is the reason for
the growth in the brewing industry.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD agreed that has been an important factor in
growing this sector. She said she moved from Colorado, which
has fostered its reputation for brewing. She said she thinks
the law has had the same affect in terms of a growth in
distilleries.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the entire market is growing, or if
there has been a shift in that which is being sold and consumed.
MS. CIONI-HAYWOOD reiterated that there has been a shift to the
craft brew market.
3:41:33 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:41 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.
3:43:12 PM
KEN ALPER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue (DOR),
offered a PowerPoint presentation [hardcopy included in the
committee packet] related to small brewery exemption. He
explained that the division was asked to look at the reduced tax
rate for small craft brewers, how it is applied, and what some
of the underlying numbers are. He indicated that this
information surfaced in the process of creating an indirect
expenditure report. As shown on slide 3, Mr. Alper explained
that [House Bill 306], sponsored by Representative Thompson, was
passed in 2014 and requires an indirect expenditure detail
report every two years from DOR to the legislature. Then the
Legislative Finance Division comes up with a more detailed
report, by department, on a rotating schedule. He said two
reports have been submitted thus far to the legislature: the
first in 2014 and the second in 2016.
MR. ALPER turned to information on slide 4, which states that
"indirect expenditure" is defined under [AS 43.05.095(d)], which
read as follows:
(d) In this section, "indirect expenditure" means
an express provision of state law that results in
foregone revenue for the state by providing
(1) a tax credit or other credit;
(2) an exemption, but does not include federal
tax exemptions adopted by reference in AS 43.20.021;
(3) a discount;
(4) a deduction, but does not include costs
incurred in the ordinary course of business that are
deducted in the calculation of a tax under this title
or in the calculation of a royalty or net profit share
payment for a lease issued under AS 38;
(5) a differential allowance.
MR. ALPER, in regard to slide 5, stated that the division's
report showed details on 231 different line items across 11
departments and agencies, including 78 provisions administered
by DOR. He said many agencies worked in cooperation with DOR in
this effort. He highlighted the information on slide 6, which
expresses that each department was required to report the
following information for each item: name and description of
the indirect expenditure; statutory authority; repeal date;
legislative intent; public purpose; estimated revenue impact;
estimated cost to administer; and the number of beneficiaries
and who benefits.
3:45:54 PM
MR. ALPER directed attention to slide 8 and spoke about the
background on alcoholic beverage tax. As shown on the slide, he
stated that the related statute is AS 43.60. He said that
directly following prohibition there was a 5 cent/gallon tax on
beer and wine enacted in 1933. Shortly thereafter, that tax was
added onto distilled spirits. He said the basic statute has not
changed dramatically in the last 80-plus years; however, the
rate has increased over time. He explained that the tax is
collected at the wholesale transaction. He advised there was a
major rate increase in 2002, and the idea of "dime a drink" was
instigated wherein part of the money collected in taxes was used
for treatment of "people with problems." He highlighted that
the "dime a drink" equated as follows: distilled spirits at
$12.80 per gallon, with 128 ounces per gallon, means 10 cents
per ounce of liquor; wine at $2.50 a gallon or 10 cents per 5-
ounce glass; and beer and cider at $1.07 per gallon or 10 cents
per 12-ounce bottle. Mr. Alper, in answer to a previous query,
related that "hard cider is calculated within the beer tax
framework."
MR. ALPER stated that the tax on beer, prior to 2002, was 35
cents per gallon, so the tax was essentially tripled in 2002.
He stated that as shown on slide 9, as part of the 2002 tax
bill, the legislature created a separate rate for breweries
meeting the qualifications of 26 USC 5051(a)(2). The definition
is less than 2 million barrels of beer produced in the U.S.;
only a handful of domestic breweries are larger than that size,
although they represent a large percentage of the beer sold;
imported beer, by definition, does not meet the definition.
Showing slide 10, Mr. Alper related that the exception to the
$1.07 per gallon tax is in AS 43.60.010(c), which states that
the first 60,000 barrels of beer per year sold in Alaska are
taxed at the pre-2002, 35-cent tax rate. He said that with 31
gallons per barrel, a single brewery can potentially benefit up
to 1.86 million gallons or $1.34 million. He explained that 72
cents per gallon is the difference in the offset. He said 38 of
the 39 breweries in Alaska are much smaller than that;
microbreweries produce less than 15,000 barrels per year. He
stated that 25-30 percent of the beer sold in Alaska qualifies
for the reduced tax rate.
3:50:07 PM
MR. ALPER turned to slide 11, entitled "Who Pays Taxes?" He
stated that only beer sold in Alaska is taxed: beer brewed in
Alaska but sold Outside is not taxed; beer brewed in other
states and brought into Alaska is taxed. He said Alaska's
taxpayers are typically beverage distributors, who handle
multiple brands, which makes it difficult to precisely determine
volumes of in-state versus Outside-brewed beer. Some Alaska
breweries distribute their own product, and therefore pay taxes
directly.
MR. ALPER presented information from a chart on slide 12, which
shows the impact of small brewery reduced rate on a table
showing growth trend for small breweries. He stated, "In
general, we're finding [that] 35 to 40 percent of the reduced-
price beer is brewed in Alaska; the other 60 percent or so is
brewed in other states."
3:51:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL regarding the cut-off of 60,000 bbls for the
beer discount, asked if the beer must be produced in Alaska.
MR. ALPER offered his understanding that initially there had
been discussion regarding limiting the benefit to beer brewed in
Alaska; however, there were constitutional issues with doing so.
He said, "We can favor American beer, but we can't favor Alaskan
beer." He clarified that the cut-off pertains to beer brewed
anywhere in the U.S. at less than 2 million barrels per year.
In that case, the first 60,000 bbls sold in Alaska are eligible
for the reduced rate. Any amount sold above 60,000 would revert
to the higher tax rate.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL indicated that there may be a discrepancy in
terms of what he has heard from speaking with a distributor. He
asked for clarification that Mr. Alper is saying that a brewery
qualifies for an exemption for the first 60,000 barrels sold in
Alaska; at 60,001, the rate reverts to the $1.07 per barrel tax
rate.
MR. ALPER confirmed Representative Wool is correct; however, he
emphasized that to qualify in the first place, the overall
company "has to be below 2 million barrels brewed in the United
States."
3:53:30 PM
CHAIR KITO asked, "How do we audit for the 2 million barrels per
year?"
MR. ALPER answered that "it's a federal definition"; therefore,
there is some sort of certification. He deferred to Deputy
Director Brandon Spanos for further information. He offered his
understanding that the brewery shows [the Tax Division] its
federal license for a small brewery.
3:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented on the benefit that is given
to relatively small producers for the first 60,000 bbls consumed
in Alaska, and he asked if there is a reciprocal benefit that
[Alaska brewers] get by selling out of state.
MR. ALPER responded that Alaskan brewers selling in Washington,
for example, are subject to whatever the State of Washington's
excise tax on beer is. He said he does not know if other states
have a similar differential tax rate for small breweries, "but
if they do, we would most certainly qualify."
3:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that it is up to the distributor to
track the number of barrels sold, in terms of qualifying for the
benefit applied to less than 60,000 bbls.
MR. APLER answered that is correct. He noted that each beer
sold in Alaska has a single distributor, so there is no problem
tracking various amounts sold by more than one company and
having to determine "whose 10,000 ends up paying the higher
tax."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL indicated that the 60,000-barrel cap is "not
a particular advantage for Alaskan beer," since all but the
Alaska Brewery in Juneau are nowhere close to producing over
that cap.
MR. ALPER responded that 60,000 bbls is nearly 2 million
gallons, and there are more than 10 beers in a gallon, and
[reaching 60,000 bbls] would mean 18 million beers from a single
brewery. He said with only 700,000 people in Alaska and a
substantial number of those who do not drink beer, "it would be
hard to reach that number for a single brewery." He speculated
that the Alaskan Brewery brews more than 60,000 barrels per year
but exports a substantial amount of that to other states. He
added, "So, I'm pretty certain what they sell in Alaska is well
below the 60,000 threshold. That's never been a limiting
factor, to my knowledge - the 60,000 number."
3:57:55 PM
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), in response to Chair Kito's previous question
about ensuring breweries meet the 2-million barrel [cap],
explained that the division requires breweries to apply to
qualify for the reduced rate. When the application is made to
the division, breweries must also supply a federal form to the
federal government that certifies that "they meet that
requirement."
MR. SPANOS, in response to Representative Wool's question
regarding whose responsibility it is to track whether amounts
are above or below 60,000, stated that the division keeps track
of that on the tax form and would assess the brewery at the
higher rate "if they don't keep track of that themselves."
3:59:18 PM
MR ALPER continued with the slide presentation and, referring
again to slide 10, said that 25-30 percent of the beer sold in
Alaska qualifying for the reduced tax rate speaks to the
"blossoming and explosion of small breweries both locally and
nationally." Notwithstanding that, he noted that the bulk of
beer consumed still is sourced from major brewers, which are
well above the 2-million threshold. He reviewed the information
on slide 11, emphasizing that some breweries deliver their own
truckloads, which makes them a direct tax payer. He added, "If
other volumes of theirs are run through a distributor, [then]
the distributor is paying the taxes on that portion of it."
4:00:43 PM
MR. ALPER returned to slide 12, which shows: a steadily growing
number of breweries receiving the reduced tax rate benefit, from
19 in 2012 to 31 in 2016; an increase in the number of reduced
rate gallons, with the current number at just over 4 million;
about 150,000 barrels, statewide, falling under the reduced tax
rate; a tax impact of the reduce rate at just over $3 million;
the in-state brewery benefit, at about 35-40 percent of the
total, was just over $1.3 million in 2016; and the out-of-state
brewery benefit in 2016 was just under $1.7 million.
MR. ALPER stated, "The increase in the number of breweries is
more than 50 percent; the total volume is up by only maybe 15 or
20 percent, so you're seeing more, smaller breweries, and
therefore a smaller average production per brewery as this
industry is reaching its next step." He said there are a couple
small breweries opening in Juneau in 2017.
4:02:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked, "Is there an expiration on ...
the discounted rate or is it just fixed?"
MR. ALPER answered that there is not a discounted rate. He
added, "It is simply ... [an] alternative tax calculation in
statute."
4:02:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reasoned that the benefit favors out-of-
state breweries because of the 60,000-barrel threshold.
MR. ALPER answered, "There's simply more of them." He explained
that a lot of beer brewed by small breweries gets brought into
the state of Alaska; it more than equals the amount that is
brewed and sold in Alaska. He said hopefully, over time, Alaska
would take a larger percentage of its own market share, but
currently, there are large-size companies [Outside] that sell a
lot of beer in Alaska, and the amount adds up to more than what
is both produced and sold in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL observed that many smaller breweries are
being bought by major companies, thus they will be above the 2-
million threshold, because they are owned by Anheuser-Busch
InBev.
MR. ALPER said he thinks Representative Wool is correct. He
said, "That would be something in our statute that favors those
who choose to remain independent." He deferred to Mr. Spanos
for a more definitive answer.
4:04:09 PM
CHAIR KITO clarified that the question is whether a smaller
brewery being absorbed by a larger brewery would absorb the
threshold of the parent company or if it would remain a small
brewery for federal purposes.
4:04:29 PM
MR. SPANOS said he does not know the answer. Notwithstanding
that, he surmised that [the smaller brewery] would "lose that
designation."
4:04:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what the impetus was for the discount
that began under statute in 2002.
4:05:06 PM
MR. ALPER answered that at that point, the legislature was
tripling the tax on beer, and he said he is sure the small
breweries must have "raised a complaint" that the higher taxes
would drive them out of business; therefore, the benefit was
created to maintain competitiveness for small businesses. He
reiterated that the original intent was to carve this protection
out for beer brewed in Alaska; however, he reiterated that there
was an issue of constitutionality.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that the "tasting room law," which
allowed establishments to brew in a back room and sell the brew
at retail prices in the front room, was the biggest impetus for
the blossoming of Alaskan breweries.
MR. ALPER responded that it is not unusual for start-up
breweries to concentrate on on-site consumption and then start
delivering some kegs to local restaurants; however, the bottling
line sometimes does not get added until several years later.
4:06:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recollected that about 14 months prior
there had been consideration given to doubling the alcohol
excise tax and increasing trade tax across the board. At that
time, he said, his greatest reluctance had been related to the
tax on alcohol, because "we already had the highest rate." He
asked, "Is part of the reason it doubled because we were going
to do away with this in-state brewery benefit?"
MR. ALPER answered that the governor's alcohol tax bill from
2016 was a doubling of all the rates. He showed slide 8 again
and noted that [the doubling] would mean rates of $25.60 per
gallon for distilled spirits, $5.00 per gallon for wine, and
$2.14 per gallon for beer and cider. He said that would have
been 20 cents per portion [compared to the aforementioned "dime
a drink"]. He said, "That bill contained an increase in the
small brewery exempted tax from 35 cents to 70 cents, so it was
actually doubling it; but, it actually increased the delta, as
you were, between the full tax and the small brewery tax."
4:08:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH inquired, "Is there an ask associated with
this?"
4:08:38 PM
MR. ALPER answered that currently the administration does not
have "any statutory asks" regarding the alcoholic beverage tax.
He said he was present for today's presentation at the request
of the committee, to show "the impact of this specific
exemption," possibly to consider whether to modify it.
4:09:00 PM
CHAIR KITO confirmed that [the committee] was asked to look
deeper into the issue by the chair of the House Commerce,
Community & Economic Development Finance Subcommittee. He said
it is up to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee to
determine whether there are opportunities to maintain the
economy or possibly increase revenue, and the information from
Mr. Alper can be part of the discussion. He reviewed that Mr.
Alper's presentation showed that there are $3 million of impact
based on the reduced rate. Options range from eliminating the
reduction to saving $3 million in revenue to "somewhere in
between or not touching it at all."
4:10:02 PM
MR. ALPER proffered that Alaska's alcoholic beverage taxes are
among the highest in country. He added, "The $1.07 is very much
in the high end of beer taxes; the 35-cent reduced rate [is]
kind of middle of the pack, as far as beer taxes in other
states."
CHAIR KITO thanked Mr. Alper for the informative and clarifying
information.
4:12:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOR HFIN BSC HLAC recommendation.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2017 3:15:00 PM |
|
| Memo Rep Seaton Requesting Committee Action 3.6.17.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2017 3:15:00 PM |
|
| Presentation DCCED Alcohol Tax 5.3.17.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2017 3:15:00 PM |
|
| Presentation DOR Alcohol Tax 5-3-17.pdf |
HL&C 5/3/2017 3:15:00 PM |