Ballatine Ale and Beer OI's not WF in the ads hits Hawaii 1941

[keithker]

I believe this image is in the amazing newspaper archive on the RB homepage but wanted to add a few comments. A huge thanks as always goes out to the effort made on the newspaper archives.....

The images of the ale are the same USBC Vol 1 33-1 Lilek 62 and 63 however something seems amiss with the beer in the ad. There are four lines under the word export. Just a bad artist rendition of what the can was supposed to look like?

Also, note neither of the cans are Withdrawn Free although Hawaii was not officially a state.

The_Honolulu_Advertiser_Fri__Aug_29__1941

[Roy Rogers]

Love the vintage stuff. Thanks for posting.

[ThreeRing]

Keith - Thanks for posting. Probably the artist was carried away by the design of the cans and just included a 4 line mandatory on the 1940 beer can because it looked right or because that was the correct mandatory on Ballantine Ale cans.
To answer the tax question we look at IRS regulations 18. Section 192.340 is pretty clear on US possessions where the internal revenue

tax applies. This regulation is based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. So it is pretty clear that beer sent to Alaska or Hawaii was taxpaid, even though neither were States in 1940.

[keithker]

Keith - Thanks for posting. Probably the artist was carried away by the design of the cans and just included a 4 line mandatory on the 1940 beer can because it looked right or because that was the correct mandatory on Ballantine Ale cans.
To answer the tax question we look at IRS regulations 18. Section 192.340 is pretty clear on US possessions where the internal revenue Regulations 18 (2).jpgtax applies. This regulation is based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. So it is pretty clear that beer sent to Alaska or Hawaii was taxpaid, even though neither were States in 1940.

@ThreeRing Charlie....Fantastic. I'm been trying to find that in writing and thanks to you right there it is.