Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Any Canadian Busted?

Expand Messages
  • harisaki2004
    And here in Australia you can apply free through the tax office to manufacture alcohol. All you need to do is make/purchase your still. The fill out yards of
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      And here in Australia you can apply free through the tax office to
      manufacture alcohol.

      All you need to do is make/purchase your still. The fill out yards of
      forms, they then come and inspect you and give you a license.

      Of course you have to report your volumes of alcohol used/sold and pay
      the excise.
      There is no excise on alcohol used to fortify wines.

      regards
      Hari.


      --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "KM Services" <km_services@...> wrote:
      >

      > New Zealand, here I come..
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
    • bbornais
      Actually the law in Canada is Very clear. If you had read the Excise Act like you said you did, then you would have found this: Ref: Excise Act, 2001 ( 2002,
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Actually the law in Canada is Very clear. If you had read the Excise
        Act like you said you did, then you would have found this:

        Ref: Excise Act, 2001 ( 2002, c. 22 )

        Prohibition — production and packaging of spirits

        60. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a spirits licence
        issued to the person, produce or package spirits.

        Exception

        (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
        (a) the packaging of spirits from a marked special container by a
        purchaser at a bottle-your-own premises; or

        (b) the production of spirits for the purpose or as a consequence of
        the analysis of the composition of a substance containing absolute
        ethyl alcohol.

        2002, c. 22, s. 60; 2007, c. 18, s. 89.

        Prohibition — possession of still

        61. No person shall possess a still or other equipment suitable for
        the production of spirits with the intent of producing spirits unless
        the person

        (a) is a spirits licensee;

        (b) has a pending application for a spirits licence; or

        (c) possesses the still or equipment solely for the purpose of
        producing spirits for the purpose or as a consequence of the analysis
        of the composition of a substance containing absolute ethyl alcohol.

        2002, c. 22, s. 61; 2007, c. 18, s. 90.

        And the PUNISHMENTS:

        PART 6
        ENFORCEMENT
        Offences and Punishment
        Unlawful production, sale, etc., of tobacco or alcohol

        214. Every person who contravenes section 25, 27 or 29, subsection
        32.1(1) or section 60 or 62 is guilty of an offence and liable

        (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not less than $50,000
        and not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not
        more than five years, or to both; or

        (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $10,000 and not
        more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18
        months, or to both.

        2002, c. 22, s. 214; 2008, c. 28, s. 60.



        Seems pretty clear to me,

        Bryan.


        --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Eric Yendall <eric_yendall@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Actually the law in Canada is NOT so clear. I have read the Excise
        Act which is written from the standpoint of collecting taxes from
        commercial operations, not forbidding the private production of
        alcohol for personal consumption or the private possession of a
        still. Of course this is only an interpretation but that is why we
        have courts. I have yet to find an example of anyone being charged
        and subsequently convicted for operating a personal still. Apart from
        the police authorities having bigger fish to fry, they would first
        have to find you; then get a warrant to search; they would have to
        prove that you were producing alcohol and not distilled water; and
        then they would have to win the case in court. I have searched the
        internet for case law and come up empty and would be very interested
        in an answer to the original poster's question.
        >
        > In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can
        be adequately explained by stupidity.
        >
      • Zapata Vive
        Did I read that wrong, or is it perfectly legal to make and analyze absolute ethanol? That s what it looks like it says. If I wanted to analyze my wine to
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Did I read that wrong, or is it perfectly legal to make and analyze absolute ethanol?  That's what it looks like it says.  If I wanted to analyze my wine to see if and how much absolute ethanol was in it, then I'd be perfectly ok to do so.  Or am I confused?  What's the deal with that exception?  Reflux stills are ok, but whiskey stills aren't?  Doesn't seem so clear to me...
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: bbornais
          Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:11 AM
          Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?

          Actually the law in Canada is Very clear. If you had read the Excise
          Act like you said you did, then you would have found this:

          Ref: Excise Act, 2001 ( 2002, c. 22 )

          Prohibition — production and packaging of spirits

          60. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a spirits licence
          issued to the person, produce or package spirits.

          Exception

          (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
          (a) the packaging of spirits from a marked special container by a
          purchaser at a bottle-your- own premises; or

          (b) the production of spirits for the purpose or as a consequence of
          the analysis of the composition of a substance containing absolute
          ethyl alcohol.

          2002, c. 22, s. 60; 2007, c. 18, s. 89.

          Prohibition — possession of still

          61. No person shall possess a still or other equipment suitable for
          the production of spirits with the intent of producing spirits unless
          the person

          (a) is a spirits licensee;

          (b) has a pending application for a spirits licence; or

          (c) possesses the still or equipment solely for the purpose of
          producing spirits for the purpose or as a consequence of the analysis
          of the composition of a substance containing absolute ethyl alcohol.

          2002, c. 22, s. 61; 2007, c. 18, s. 90.

          And the PUNISHMENTS:

          PART 6
          ENFORCEMENT
          Offences and Punishment
          Unlawful production, sale, etc., of tobacco or alcohol

          214. Every person who contravenes section 25, 27 or 29, subsection
          32.1(1) or section 60 or 62 is guilty of an offence and liable

          (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not less than $50,000
          and not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not
          more than five years, or to both; or

          (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $10,000 and not
          more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18
          months, or to both.

          2002, c. 22, s. 214; 2008, c. 28, s. 60.

          Seems pretty clear to me,

          Bryan.

          --- In Distillers@yahoogro ups.com, Eric Yendall <eric_yendall@ ...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Actually the law in Canada is NOT so clear. I have read the Excise
          Act which is written from the standpoint of collecting taxes from
          commercial operations, not forbidding the private production of
          alcohol for personal consumption or the private possession of a
          still. Of course this is only an interpretation but that is why we
          have courts. I have yet to find an example of anyone being charged
          and subsequently convicted for operating a personal still. Apart from
          the police authorities having bigger fish to fry, they would first
          have to find you; then get a warrant to search; they would have to
          prove that you were producing alcohol and not distilled water; and
          then they would have to win the case in court. I have searched the
          internet for case law and come up empty and would be very interested
          in an answer to the original poster's question.
          >
          > In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can
          be adequately explained by stupidity.
          >

        • bbornais
          The exception is for research institutions that are regognized holders of Canadian funding for applied research (example: NSERC). So the answer is no. Unless
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            The exception is for research institutions that are regognized
            holders of Canadian funding for applied research (example: NSERC).

            So the answer is no. Unless you have a regonized research facility
            operating out of your home!

            --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Zapata Vive" <zapatavive@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Did I read that wrong, or is it perfectly legal to make and
            analyze absolute ethanol? That's what it looks like it says. If I
            wanted to analyze my wine to see if and how much absolute ethanol
            was in it, then I'd be perfectly ok to do so. Or am I confused?
            What's the deal with that exception? Reflux stills are ok, but
            whiskey stills aren't? Doesn't seem so clear to me...
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: bbornais
            > To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:11 AM
            > Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?
            >
            >
            > Actually the law in Canada is Very clear. If you had read the
            Excise
            > Act like you said you did, then you would have found this:
            >
            > Ref: Excise Act, 2001 ( 2002, c. 22 )
            >
            > Prohibition - production and packaging of spirits
            >
            > 60. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a spirits
            licence
            > issued to the person, produce or package spirits.
            >
            > Exception
            >
            > (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to
            > (a) the packaging of spirits from a marked special container by
            a
            > purchaser at a bottle-your-own premises; or
            >
            > (b) the production of spirits for the purpose or as a
            consequence of
            > the analysis of the composition of a substance containing
            absolute
            > ethyl alcohol.
            >
            > 2002, c. 22, s. 60; 2007, c. 18, s. 89.
            >
            > Prohibition - possession of still
            >
            > 61. No person shall possess a still or other equipment suitable
            for
            > the production of spirits with the intent of producing spirits
            unless
            > the person
            >
            > (a) is a spirits licensee;
            >
            > (b) has a pending application for a spirits licence; or
            >
            > (c) possesses the still or equipment solely for the purpose of
            > producing spirits for the purpose or as a consequence of the
            analysis
            > of the composition of a substance containing absolute ethyl
            alcohol.
            >
            > 2002, c. 22, s. 61; 2007, c. 18, s. 90.
            >
            > And the PUNISHMENTS:
            >
            > PART 6
            > ENFORCEMENT
            > Offences and Punishment
            > Unlawful production, sale, etc., of tobacco or alcohol
            >
            > 214. Every person who contravenes section 25, 27 or 29,
            subsection
            > 32.1(1) or section 60 or 62 is guilty of an offence and liable
            >
            > (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not less than
            $50,000
            > and not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of
            not
            > more than five years, or to both; or
            >
            > (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not less than $10,000
            and not
            > more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more
            than 18
            > months, or to both.
            >
            > 2002, c. 22, s. 214; 2008, c. 28, s. 60.
            >
            > Seems pretty clear to me,
            >
            > Bryan.
            >
            > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Eric Yendall <eric_yendall@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Actually the law in Canada is NOT so clear. I have read the
            Excise
            > Act which is written from the standpoint of collecting taxes
            from
            > commercial operations, not forbidding the private production of
            > alcohol for personal consumption or the private possession of a
            > still. Of course this is only an interpretation but that is why
            we
            > have courts. I have yet to find an example of anyone being
            charged
            > and subsequently convicted for operating a personal still. Apart
            from
            > the police authorities having bigger fish to fry, they would
            first
            > have to find you; then get a warrant to search; they would have
            to
            > prove that you were producing alcohol and not distilled water;
            and
            > then they would have to win the case in court. I have searched
            the
            > internet for case law and come up empty and would be very
            interested
            > in an answer to the original poster's question.
            > >
            > > In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what
            can
            > be adequately explained by stupidity.
            > >
            >
          • subsonic40grain
            ... The production of alcohol in the UK via illicit distillation is illegal full stop. Home brewing and wine making is not, provided you do not sell. No
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              > -What's the situation in the UK?

              The production of alcohol in the UK via illicit distillation is
              illegal full stop. Home brewing and wine making is not, provided you
              do not sell. No licence is required to make beer at home, although
              prior to 1963 this was the case. To sell you need a licence.

              In terms of prosecution for illegal home distillation, I seem to
              recall that the offence is a civil one as opposed to a criminal one
              (my memory may be wrong mind as this is not my precise field). That
              said, it would not be a good thing either way. I looked at the
              relevant page on the UK customs and for those who wish to see the
              full English version paste the link below into your browser. Next
              time you tip a dram you may well appreciate the other 'effort' that
              went into producing it! i'm not sure if the law in Scotland is the
              same mind. If anyone REALLY wanted to know more I could find out,
              but the bottom line is that its illegal.

              Subsonic

              http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.p
              ortal?
              _nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000245&propert
              yType=document
            • subsonic40grain
              I never quite understand the hyperlink pasting on this site! I screwed up somewhere..... The link is this, but paste the lot in one line, if that makes sense.
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I never quite understand the hyperlink pasting on this site! I screwed
                up somewhere.....

                The link is this, but paste the lot in one line, if that makes sense.
                Apologies for the screw up. If anyone reads the whole document you get
                a gold star and 10/10 from me :-))

                Subsonic

                http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.por
                tal?
                _nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000245&propertyT
                ype=document#P364_27455
              • Eric Yendall
                Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition of a "person". Since the act is concerned with licensing and regulation of commercial operations, then one can argue that it does not apply to individuals producing alcohol for their personal use. If the law is not ambiguous, where are the convictions? Just one is needed to prove your contention. I have yet to find one. It would not be difficult to come up with a list of Canadian personal distillers: all they would have to do is raid Ian Smiley's operation, which is run quite openly and apparently legally.

                  In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                • Brendan Keith
                  I think your distinction between person and commercial operation is flawed. It is blanketedly illegal unless you are a licensed commercial operation or
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 4, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Message
                    I think your distinction between "person" and "commercial operation" is flawed. 
                     
                    It is blanketedly illegal unless you are a licensed commercial operation or research institution.
                     
                    You don't really think they'd leave a loophole that large, do you?
                     
                     

                    --

                    Brendan Keith

                    bkeith@...

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Distillers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Distillers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Yendall
                    Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:25 PM
                    To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?

                    Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition of a "person". Since the act is concerned with licensing and regulation of commercial operations, then one can argue that it does not apply to individuals producing alcohol for their personal use. If the law is not ambiguous, where are the convictions? Just one is needed to prove your contention. I have yet to find one. It would not be difficult to come up with a list of Canadian personal distillers: all they would have to do is raid Ian Smiley's operation, which is run quite openly and apparently legally.

                    In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                  • Eric Yendall
                    We ll let the courts decide, shall we? Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 5, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      We'll let the courts decide, shall we?


                      Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                    • Dave Lineback
                      Hey, boys and girls, it s ALL legal until you are busted. So, burn a clean fire, cover your tracks, distract the crows with a dead cat, and keep your mouth
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 5, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey, boys and girls, it's ALL legal until you are busted. So, burn a clean fire, cover your tracks, distract the crows with a dead cat, and keep your mouth shut.

                        Dave iNC

                        Brendan Keith wrote:

                        I think your distinction between "person" and "commercial operation" is flawed. 
                         
                        It is blanketedly illegal unless you are a licensed commercial operation or research institution.
                         
                        You don't really think they'd leave a loophole that large, do you?
                         
                         

                        --

                        Brendan Keith

                        bkeith@sympatico. ca

                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Distillers@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:Distillers@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Eric Yendall
                        Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:25 PM
                        To: Distillers@yahoogro ups.com
                        Subject: [Distillers] Re: Any Canadian Busted?

                        Yes I did read this and I remain unconvinced. It all hinges on the context i.e. the rest of the act. The issue is the definition of a still and the definition of a "person". Since the act is concerned with licensing and regulation of commercial operations, then one can argue that it does not apply to individuals producing alcohol for their personal use. If the law is not ambiguous, where are the convictions? Just one is needed to prove your contention. I have yet to find one. It would not be difficult to come up with a list of Canadian personal distillers: all they would have to do is raid Ian Smiley's operation, which is run quite openly and apparently legally.

                        In politics and government, never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by stupidity.


                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.