April 26, 2024

It’s Scotch, but the Owners Live Elsewhere

Nowadays the family’s Glenfarclas malt is produced in a modern, highly automated plant that exports it to the United States, Taiwan and other countries. But the profit returns here to the valley of the River Spey in the heart of Scotland’s whisky country. And that repatriated money is what makes Glenfarclas such a rarity.

“Within a 20-mile radius of where we are now, there are 35 distilleries,” said Mr. Grant, the director of sales at Glenfarclas. But only a handful of the operations within that 30-kilometer radius remain in Scottish hands. The rest are owned by big multinationals — most notably Diageo, based in London, and the French company Pernod Ricard — which book their profits and employ many of their staff members elsewhere.

In fact Mr. Grant, 36, says he knows of no other whisky maker apart from Glenfarclas that has its sales and marketing operation based at the distillery in this scenic part of Scotland. Though he says relations with the big non-Scottish players are good — they buy some of Glenfarclas’s output for their blended whiskies, after all — Mr. Grant notes that what sets his family’s company apart is its place in the community and the fact that “we’ve been here forever.”

To be sold as Scotch whisky, liquor must be produced in Scotland. The rest of the business can be elsewhere, though, and it often is.

Non-Scottish companies control about four-fifths of the £4.2 billion, or $5.6 billion, global market for Scotch, which is being driven by growth from emerging economies. The United States is still the biggest export market, by value, at £600 million in 2011. But Scotch whisky exports to Brazil grew 48 percent that same year, those to Taiwan 45 percent and to Venezuela 33 per cent, according to the Scotch Whisky Association.

John Kay, a prominent economist and former economic adviser to the Scottish government, says that too little of the money from those exports ends up in the Scottish economy.

He has proposed a £1 “bottle tax,” levied on all Scotch production, which would be paid by the distillers. The precise value of such a tax is hard to predict, but the Scotch Whisky Association says that about 1.3 billion bottles were exported in 2011 and it estimates that foreign sales make up 95 percent of the market.

But much of the monetary benefit goes to governments that slap duties on the product wherever it is sold.

“A lot of money is being made out of this product by foreign governments and foreign companies,” Mr. Kay said. The bottle tax, he said, would be a way to keep some of that money in Scotland.

With a referendum looming next year on Scottish independence, the idea has prompted a new debate about the country’s economic assets. It has even prompted comparisons between the North Sea natural gas and oil extracted from Scotland’s coastal waters and the Scotch spirit distilled on its heather-covered moorlands and windswept islands.

Whisky supports about 10,000 jobs in Scotland, including those of people working in bottling plants, and in total about 36,000 in Britain across the whole of the economy, including haulers and packaging companies, the Scotch Whisky Association says. But the distilleries themselves are not big job creators. Although the most modern ones operate 24 hours a day, they tend to employ no more than a dozen people.

Patrick Harvie, member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow responsible for enterprise for the Scottish Green party said it was “good to see others starting to question the benefits to Scotland of allowing our national assets to be controlled by global corporations.”

Mr. Harvie drew a parallel with a debate over the tax liability of corporations, including Starbucks, that use their multinational status to reduce corporate tax bills. Diageo says that it pays about 18 percent of tax on its profit on average but does not say where it does so.

“Our most famous whisky brands are registered abroad and the owners’ tax arrangements are less than clear,” Mr. Harvie said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/global/its-scotch-but-the-owners-live-elsewhere.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Alcohol Laws Eased to Raise Tax Money

With cities across the country facing their fifth straight year of declining revenues and states cutting services and laying off workers, raising money from people who enjoy a cocktail is becoming an increasingly attractive option.

Since the recession started in earnest in 2008, dozens of states and cities have tinkered with laws that regulate alcohol sales as a way to build up their budgets.

Twelve states have raised taxes on alcohol or changed alcohol laws to increase revenue, including Maryland, which in July pushed the sales tax on alcohol to 9 percent, from 6 percent — the first such increase in 38 years and one that is expected to bring in $85 million a year.

In November, voters in Atlanta and elsewhere in Georgia will decide whether to repeal colonial-era laws that ban alcohol sales on Sunday.

People touring the Jack Daniel’s distillery in Lynchburg, Tenn., may finally be able to have a sip now that the state has loosened laws to allow tastings as part of a package of changes intended to attract more alcohol-related business to the state.

Even universities are hoping alcohol will raise revenue. Fans of the Louisiana State University Tigers will soon be drinking Bandit Blonde, a beer whose name refers to a famous 1950s football defense. Made by a local brewery under a special licensing agreement, it puts money into the university coffers with every swig.

The beer will be sold on tap and in gold-and-purple cans at bars, restaurants and stores around Louisiana. The university will get royalties of between 6 and 8 percent, said Charles D’Agostino, executive director of the university’s Louisiana Business and Technology Center.

Although some drinkers and government budget writers might like the changes, not everyone is happy.

“Lawmakers are taking a very short-sided view,” said David Jernigan, director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “What they gain in short-term tax revenue they are losing in long-term police costs, emergency room costs and work-force readiness costs in terms of the Monday morning effect.”

Like many public health officials, Mr. Jernigan does not support government efforts that increase the availability of alcohol, but he does support raising sales tax as a way to make people drink less.

Taxes do not always slow things down at happy hour, however. Because there is not a good substitute for alcohol, state officials are banking on the fact that people will simply pay more or drink cheaper brands.

“These are kind of antitax times, so it’s tough to raise any kind of tax, but this is one they might have more success with,” said Mark Stehr, an associate professor of economics at Drexel University in Philadelphia who has studied the effects of taxes and other regulations on cigarettes and alcohol.

“Legislators can say it’s to protect health and reduce drunk driving, and that’s what can draw support, but the real motivation is revenue,” he said.

The nation’s states and local governments take in $17 billion year from alcohol taxes. And although the number has been rising steadily, the recession has slowed that growth, said David Ozgo, chief economist at the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.

Still, states keep adding them. Illinois raised alcohol taxes in 2009 specifically for roads, schools and other projects, adding about $100 million a year to the capital fund. In 2010, Washington State installed a temporary excise tax on certain beers that adds about 28 cents a six-pack. In three years, it should bring in about $180 million.

Although a study from the distilled spirits council predicts that Sunday sales in Georgia could generate as much as $4.8 million, analysts are less certain that allowing them will bring in much new money because drinkers are likely simply to shift the days they buy alcohol.

Georgia is one of only three states left (Connecticut and Indiana are the others) that prohibit selling any kind of alcohol on Sunday. Although a thirsty patron could buy a drink at a restaurant or a ballgame in some communities, stores cannot sell it.

The roots of the ban are religious, and the law was defended for years by Gov. Sonny Perdue, who vowed to veto any legislation that tried to change it. When Gov. Nathan Deal took office this year, lawmakers overrode opposition by religious groups and some rural legislators and wrote a law allowing local governments to put the question of Sunday sales to a vote.

On Nov. 8, nearly 100 Georgia cities and counties will hold referendums on the issue. For Atlanta, expanding liquor laws is about economic stimulation and modernity, said Kwanza Hall, a member of the City Council who is also trying to get the hours one can pour drinks extended to 4 a.m.

“It’s kind of neat to get with the program down here,” he said.

Robbie Brown contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2b51a815ea28189386d01349e2393ea4