Economic Nexus and the DtC Alcohol Shipper

Alex Koral
September 8, 2021

As states have adopted new economic nexus laws over the last several years, vastly expanding whom states can make responsible for sales taxes obligations, direct-to-consumer (DtC) shippers of alcohol have had to adjust, though not as much as most remote sellers. Generally, DtC alcohol shippers are required to collect and remit sales taxes in the states they ship to as a condition of getting their DtC shipping licenses. However, in about a dozen states, economic nexus laws have established new or additional tax sales tax burdens on DtC shippers of alcohol. 

When the Supreme Court ruled in the 2018 South Dakota v. Wayfair case that states could impose sales tax burdens on remote sellers that made a certain threshold of annual revenue in their states (i.e., economic nexus), DtC shippers were largely already managing interstate sales tax filings in most states. As such, most economic nexus rules did not present major changes for DtC alcohol shippers. They have continued to collect and remit sales tax in those states as business as usual.

But it is important for DtC shippers to be aware of those dozen states where economic nexus rules have created new tax burdens, or altered how DtC shippers should manage their existing ones. What follows is an overview of the key changes that economic nexus has had on DtC alcohol shippers. If a state is not mentioned below, that does not mean DtC alcohol shippers have no sales tax burden there, just that economic nexus rules have not affected that burden. 

Where economic nexus creates a new tax obligation

There are several states that never obligated DtC alcohol shippers to collect and remit sales tax as a condition of getting their DtC shipping license. Instead, DtC shippers were only subject to any existing, generally applicable sales tax laws, which more often than not meant the shipper had no sales tax burden in those states. With the national adoption of economic nexus laws, however, many more DtC shippers are now subject to sales tax burdens based on their annual sales in those states.

The states where DtC shippers previously had no sales tax obligations, but now may, if they exceed the state’s economic nexus sales thresholds are: Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri. For Colorado, Florida, Iowa and Missouri, the economic nexus threshold is only established if the seller has in excess of $100,000 in annual revenue in the state. For Alaska, D.C. and Minnesota, however, economic nexus can be reached through either $100,000 in annual revenue or 200 separate annual transactions.

However, it’s not quite so simple in a few of these states:

Alaska as a state does not have sales tax. However, municipalities in the state are permitted to establish their own local sales tax, and under the state’s economic nexus laws, remote sellers are obligated to collect and remit sales tax to participating municipalities. If a DtC shipper meets either of those thresholds in the state, they will need to register with and remit local sales taxes to the state-run commission.

Colorado has one of the most complicated sales tax systems in the country, largely because the state operates under a byzantine arrangement of state-administered and self-administered sales taxes (“self” meaning the individual cities). Under Wayfair, however, the state can only require remote sellers to manage state-administered taxes, meaning remote sellers are largely unobligated towards self-administered city’s sales taxes. But Colorado is in the process of bringing the administration of most local taxes under the state’s Sales & Use Tax System (SUTS), so remote sellers may have to manage more local taxes in the years to come.

District of Columbia is fairly straightforward, but it does tax sales of alcoholic beverages at 10%, which DtC shippers with economic nexus should be aware of.

Missouri only adopted economic nexus rules in 2021, and they are not set to take effect until January 1, 2023. Until then, remote sellers, including DtC shippers of wine, will continue to not have any sales tax obligation in the state (Missouri also has a complicated arrangement of local sales taxes, so it is hoped the state takes the time to smooth things out for remote sellers before they need to begin remitting taxes to the state).

Where economic nexus has altered existing tax obligations

California, like most states that permit DtC shipping of alcohol, requires remote shippers to collect and remit all state and local taxes based on the destination of the shipment. However, for many years, the state permitted local businesses to use the tax rate at their physical premises for all shipments across the state. In 2019, though, the state moved to a “destination-based” tax rate determination for all businesses, wherever they are located, that make over $500,000 in annual revenue in the state. Thereafter, all local businesses with such revenue need to collect and remit the specific local taxes for each location that they ship to.

Illinois also only recently moved to a destination tax system. Prior to January 2021, businesses could apply the local taxes at their physical locations for all sales across the state, and remote sellers that did pay Illinois sales taxes (like DtC shippers of wine) were only obligated to collect and remit the 6.25% state rate. Under current laws, remote sellers with economic nexus ($100,000 in annual revenue or 200 separate annual transactions) are obligated to collect and remit all local taxes based on the destination address for their shipments. DtC shippers of wine that don’t meet the state’s economic nexus thresholds can continue to collect and remit only the 6.25% state sales tax.

Wyoming never required DtC shippers of wine to collect and remit the state’s sales taxes. Instead, DtC shippers were obligated to assess and remit a 12% “markup” tax, which functioned essentially as a sales tax (it also took the place of the standard markup the state would have applied had the wine being shipped been sold through the state’s control board). However, under the state’s economic nexus rules, any DtC wine shipper that hits the thresholds ($100,000 in annual revenue or 200 separate annual transactions) are now obligated to collect and remit the state’s sales tax on top of the 12% markup tax. Notably, the 12% is deemed to be part of the retail price of the wine sold, for sales tax purposes, so affected DtC shippers should make sure to also collect and remit sales tax on the markup tax.

Generally, the adoption of economic nexus laws has been a boon to the market of DtC alcohol shippers, as states have established new, easier-to-manage collection and filing processes for remote sellers. This is a notable change from past years where it often seemed that DtC shippers had to scrounge and finagle with states in order to get set up as remote sales tax filers. To this, DtC shippers of alcohol should continue to look for sales tax simplification programs, such as those offered by Texas or Alabama, which could reduce the complexity of their burdens.

But there are those several states where economic nexus rules have created new burdens for DtC alcohol shippers, which must be complied with under generally applicable tax laws, not DtC shipping-specific laws. As ever, it ultimately benefits DtC shippers to understand these burdens ahead of time. Demonstrating good compliance with the requirements of a state is the key both to avoiding fines and other penalties, and to spreading and furthering this important and valuable market.

Take Action

Ready to take your DtC shipping to the next level? See how ShipCompliant Direct can help with your DtC compliance processes, from license management to tax determination (including the ins and outs of economic nexus) and reporting.

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.


Alex Koral

Alex Koral is Senior Regulatory Counsel for Sovos ShipCompliant in the company’s Boulder, Colorado office. He actively researches beverage alcohol regulations and market developments to inform development of Sovos’ ShipCompliant product and help educate the industry on compliance issues. Alex has been in the beverage alcohol arena since 2015, after receiving his J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School.
Share This Post
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

North America ShipCompliant
June 30, 2022
New Rules for RTDs in Vermont – Including DtC Shipping

On July 1, 2022, Vermont Act 177 takes effect, creating new ways to sell Ready-to-Drink (RTD) spirits in the state, including permission for distillers to ship these products direct-to-consumer (DtC). As defined in the act, “RTD Spirits Beverages” are alcoholic beverages obtained from distillation that contain no more than 12% ABV and are packaged in containers […]

North America ShipCompliant
June 30, 2022
Compliance Concerns for Importers

Within the three-tier system that governs how alcohol is sold and distributed within the United States, importers are considered a type of supplier. As such, they are largely regulated like domestic producers, meaning they must distribute through wholesalers, who will sell to the retailers, where customers will finally be able to purchase the importer’s products. […]

North America ShipCompliant
June 29, 2022
What States Do Not Allow Alcohol to be Shipped?

The direct-to-consumer (DtC) shipping model is growing in popularity, as the DtC wine channel recently broke the $4 billion per year mark, and 92% of craft beer drinkers are looking to order their favorite brews to the front door. It’s no surprise that producers, retailers and other potential shippers are itching to meet the growing […]

EMEA Tax Compliance VAT & Fiscal Reporting
June 28, 2022
What is Indirect Representation, and How Does it Affect UK Businesses?

According to European Customs Law, non-EU established businesses must appoint a representative for customs purposes when importing goods into the EU. In particular, the Union Customs Code establishes that non-EU resident businesses must appoint an indirect representative. At the end of the Brexit transitionary period, many UK businesses suddenly needed to appoint an indirect representative […]

E-Invoicing Compliance EMEA
June 28, 2022
Romania: Questions Remain as Deadline Looms

Romania has been taking steps toward introducing a continuous transaction controls (CTC) mandate since 2021. Although the Romanian tax authority only established the legal framework for implementing the e-invoicing system less than a year ago, it is set to go live soon. At the same time, the e-transport system, introduced even later, will also be […]