Pennsylvania House Bill HB1118

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/25
• Refer: 4/3/25

Caption

In licenses and regulations and liquor, alcohol and malt and brewed beverages, further providing for renewal of licenses and temporary provisions for licensees in armed service.

Summary

HB1118 amends Pennsylvania’s Liquor Code to create a limited refund for certain club licensees when renewing their licenses. Specifically, a club licensee that purchased less than $2,000 in liquor from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board during the preceding renewal period may apply for a $350 refund of license and filing fees paid for that renewal period. The bill requires the licensee to submit a written application on a board-prescribed form, and the board must issue the refund if it is satisfied that the application is truthful. The bill also prohibits the board from charging any fee to process the refund application. The measure is narrowly targeted at club licensees with relatively low liquor purchases, likely aiming to reduce costs for smaller or lower-volume clubs that still must maintain a liquor license. It does not change licensing eligibility standards or broader alcohol sales rules, but it does add a new administrative refund process within the Liquor Control Board’s renewal framework. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB1118 would amend Section 470 of the Liquor Code, which governs license renewal and temporary provisions for licensees in armed service, by adding a new refund provision for qualifying club licensees. The practical effect is to reduce the net cost of licensure for a subset of clubs that buy less than $2,000 in liquor from the state board in the prior renewal period. It would also require the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to accept and review refund applications without charging an application fee, creating a small new administrative duty for the board and a direct financial benefit for eligible licensees.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be a straightforward, low-conflict administrative and fee-relief proposal. Its narrow scope suggests it is intended as targeted assistance rather than a broad policy change. There is no available evidence of organized opposition or formal support in the provided materials, but the bill’s design indicates a generally favorable posture toward easing costs for small club licensees.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the fiscal and policy rationale for refunding license and filing fees to club licensees that purchase relatively little liquor, which could be viewed as a subsidy for a limited class of license holders. Some stakeholders may question whether the $2,000 purchase threshold is the right cutoff or whether the refund should be broader or more restricted. Another possible issue is the administrative burden on the Liquor Control Board, though the bill minimizes that burden by prohibiting a processing fee and using a simple written application process.