Week of July 18, 2008
Greetings! Hope you have had a phenomenal and enjoyable week! This week's offerings include a ruling on brewed products, a thank you for the successful TTB Expo (that includes copies of the session presentations), a COLAs Online workshop announcement, and an offer-in-compromise settlement.
In the TTB Newsletter, we compile the top TTB news of the week and other helpful information about the Bureau and the Federal alcohol and tobacco laws and regulations we enforce. Please send any questions and/or comments to Susan Stewart Evans, Executive Liaison for Industry Matters (susan.stewart-evans@ttb.gov) and/or Frosty Chapman, State Liaison (forrest.chapman@ttb.gov). |
 |
TTB RULING 2008-3, CLASSIFICATION OF BREWED PRODUCTS
TTB has issued a ruling to clarify that certain brewed products that are classified as "beer" under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 do not meet the definition of a "malt beverage" under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. Read more.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING TTB EXPO 2008 A HIT
The first TTB Expo was a success due largely to the considerable attendance of industry members and other interested parties. To continue fostering our goal of building bridges between government and industry, we made available the presentations from each session. Read more.
COLAs ONLINE WORKSHOP IN BOSTON
TTB will be hosting a COLAs Online Workshop in Boston this summer. The workshop will consist of a morning session for beginners and an afternoon session for advanced users. There is no cost to attend these workshops, but online registration is required. Read more.
TTB ACCEPTS $225,000 OFFER FROM WHOLESALER
TTB accepted a $225,000 offer-in-compromise to settle alleged violations of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and the Internal Revenue Code by United Liquors, Ltd., located in Braintree, Massachusetts. The violations arose when the proponent, a duly qualified wholesale liquor dealer, allegedly purchased large quantities of alcohol beverages at wholesale for resale at a location not covered by United Liquors' basic permit. Additionally, the proponent failed to keep the records required of a wholesale liquor dealer for the location where the alleged sales were made.