Thanks to everyone who replied. Apparently Ohio is a bit unique. Dave Dunbar was kind enough to research the issue and this is his answer.
General Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) does not dictate the rules for transactions. The state commercial code (UCC) does that. The transaction is the given; the accountant applies GAAP rules to the given transaction. There is no standard model for distribution systems. Some states are open states; some states are control states. There is no standard model for control state regulation.
Not all states are three-tier states. Ohio is not a three-tier state for spirits. Here is what I find on the NABCA website, which usually does a good job of explaining the distribution systems (the bullet list is my creation. It forces me to read the elements):
In 1983, Ohio completed a conversion from state-run warehouses and state-owned stock system to a bailment system.
From 1991-1996, it converted all state stores to private businesses called Contract Liquor Agencies.
In Fiscal Year 2013, JobsOhio Beverage System (JOBS) purchased from the state an exclusive franchise for the sale and distribution of spirituous liquor throughout Ohio.
JOBS owns the spirituous liquor product (intoxicating liquor containing more than 21 percent ABV) in Ohio for retail and wholesale sales.
The division [state] manages wholesale and retail operations for the sale of spirituous liquor in Ohio.
The division selects and prices products, and JOBS supplies the product to Agencies for sale on consignment.
Agencies are private businesses which own and operate retail outlets selling other goods and services to the public, such as beer, wine and low proof mixed beverages.
I read this to say that under a franchise agreement with JOBS, JOBS has a monopoly on the sale and distribution of of spirits in Ohio.
As the franchisor, the state selects which products JOBS distribute and sets the price. As described, JOBS functions as a distribution agent.
The NABCA description says that JOBS owns the product that JOBS distributes it, but it also says that the product is in bailment, i.e., JOBS has a fiduciary responsibility for the product, but the supplier still owns it until JOBS sells it to private business which operate , under contract with the state, as retail liquor agencies. NABCA says that JOBS sells to the agencies on consignment.
Bailment and consignment muddy waters. Who has title, etc., is going to be a matter of the commercial code, which doesn't like to concern itself with title, focusing instead on rights and obligations. I think that the accounting system should take the same approach.
It appears that to accommodate tasting, etc, by distillers who are residents of the State of Ohio, and still comport with the terms of the JOBS franchise, the state wrote rules that allow the distillers to acquire product from JOBS for tasting.
Under those rules, payment will become due as set forth in the rules.
Since JOBS is the seller, under the franchise agreement, it must have a purchase agreement with the distiller for goods the distiller delivers to it..
Since JOBs is the seller under the franchise agreement, it must have a sales agreement with the distiller when it delivers the goods JOBS delivers to the distiller.
The agreements set the terms of payment.
Assuming you are using an accrual system, I think that the accounts receivable and payable entries to your financial accounts should be made at the time the agreement obligate the parties to pay.
Since you appear to create two agreement, one to sell to JOBS and one to purchase from JOBS, the accounts receivable will reflect the sales to JOBS and the accounts payable will reflect the purchase from jobs.