{"id":11496,"date":"2026-04-05T21:38:26","date_gmt":"2026-04-05T21:38:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/11496\/"},"modified":"2026-04-05T21:38:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-05T21:38:26","slug":"trump-administration-signals-it-will-offer-broad-tariff-refunds-that-could-mean-millions-for-companies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/11496\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump administration signals it will offer broad tariff refunds. That could mean millions for companies."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Trump administration’s position on refunding all tariffs declared illegal by the Supreme Court has been slow to take shape. But a new court filing<\/a> this past week seemed to acknowledge that a wide array of duties will eventually be eligible for refunds.<\/p>\n

At issue is the difference between what are called liquidated and unliquidated tariffs.<\/p>\n

This legal distinction is crucial for importers and could be worth millions of dollars as companies seek to claw back duties illegally collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA).<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s filing this past week also described continued headway on a four-step process<\/a> that, once up and running, could take about 45 days to review and process applications.<\/p>\n

Read more:\u00a0What Trump’s tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet<\/a><\/p>\n

\"TOPSHOT President Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House in February to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling against his tariffs. (Mandel NGAN \/ AFP via Getty Images) \u00b7 MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images <\/p>\n

“In theory, this development provides the answer many importers were seeking,” Greg Husisian of the firm Foley & Lardner told Yahoo Finance. He said the administration’s amended order “effectively places the entire population of IEEPA entries within the Court’s refund framework.”<\/p>\n

Put another way, that means previously paid tariffs that are currently in three different statuses \u2014 unliquidated, liquidated but still within a protest window, and those where liquidation has been deemed final \u2014 may eventually be eligible for refunds.<\/p>\n

In the trade context, “liquidations” refers to the final calculation of tariffs owed and is often seen as a final stamp of sorts. The process must be done within a year of the goods being imported and the duty first being levied, but it generally happens sooner, in the 10- to 11-month range.<\/p>\n

This liquidation issue is what led to preemptive lawsuits from companies as far back as 2025<\/a>, long before the Supreme Court confirmed that tariff refunds would be possible when it struck down Trump’s blanket IEEPA duties<\/a> in February.<\/p>\n

This week’s filing was the latest concession from the Trump administration, heartening trade lawyers who have been bracing for a messy refund process on varied fronts.<\/p>\n

It’s led to an increasing sense that wide-ranging refunds are possible, including for fully liquidated tariffs.<\/p>\n

“If the government were going to fight over that issue, I would have expected them to state as much in this filing,” Erik Smithweiss, a partner focused on trade issues at the firm of GDLSK, said in an interview.<\/p>\n

He represents clients seeking refunds and said this latest language left him relieved \u2014 but he cautioned that it “doesn’t preclude the Department of Justice from one day down the road saying ‘we’re not building this process, we don’t think it’s legally authorized,’ and force that issue to be litigated.”<\/p>\n

Story Continues <\/p>\n

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s February ruling, President Trump told reporters he believed the refunds would need to be litigated “for the next two years,” but he hasn\u2019t weighed in publicly on the refund question in recent weeks.<\/p>\n

\"Cargo A cargo ship is seen at the Port Jersey container terminal in Jersey City, New Jersey in January. (CHARLY TRIBALLEAU \/ AFP via Getty Images) \u00b7 CHARLY TRIBALLEAU via Getty Images <\/p>\n

This week’s government filing was authored by Brandon Lord, executive director of the trade program at US Customs and Border Protection. It laid out how the first iteration of the coming portal for companies to apply for refunds will be able to handle approximately 63% of all entries.<\/p>\n

Guidance for the remainder, which includes tariffs where liquidation has been deemed final and described as “more complex refund scenarios,” is promised to be forthcoming.<\/p>\n

The filing also noted that the four elements for “phase 1” of the refund portal \u2014 a claim step, a processing step, a review of refund findings, and a final payment step \u2014 are between 60% and 85% complete.<\/p>\n

At a follow-up this week<\/a>, the presiding judge overseeing the case described the government as “on track” toward meeting an April 20 deadline to begin accepting refund applications.<\/p>\n

“Customs continues to make satisfactory progress,” noted Richard K. Eaton, Senior Judge at the US Court of International Trade in Manhattan, as he asked for a further update on April 14.<\/p>\n

\"NEW The United States Court of International Trade in lower Manhattan is seen in May 2025. (Spencer Platt\/Getty Images) \u00b7 Spencer Platt via Getty Images <\/p>\n

An alert to clients from the firm Snell & Wilmer<\/a> struck an optimistic tone, noting that the apparent inclusion of liquidated entries appears to ensure that “importers will not be time-barred from recovering IEEPA tariff refunds for imports that have reached final liquidation.”<\/p>\n

‘Uncertainty remains’ <\/p>\n

The developments come as consumers also angle for a direct piece of the possible refunds.<\/p>\n

The government estimates that refunds could total about $166 billion, and at least 17 lawsuits<\/a> have reportedly been filed against companies, including FedEx (FDX<\/a>), Costco (COST<\/a>), and UPS (UPS<\/a>), by consumers who say the companies would be wrong to keep any money they get back.<\/p>\n

\"SAN A Costco Wholesale sign is seen in March in San Diego, CA. (Kevin Carter\/Getty Images) \u00b7 Kevin Carter via Getty Images <\/p>\n

But many questions remain unanswered.<\/p>\n

In his note this past week, Husisian noted that it remains unclear how the process will roll out nationwide and other issues, such as whether it will matter if a company preemptively sues.<\/p>\n

There is also an ever-present chance of other courts intervening on questions like whether administrative protests from companies will be needed to receive refunds.<\/p>\n

“Look, there’s still some uncertainty down the road,” Smithweiss said. He still recommends that companies consider taking multiple steps \u2014 administrative protests and even litigation \u2014 “just to be sure.”<\/p>\n

Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.<\/p>\n

Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow’s stock prices<\/a><\/p>\n

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Trump administration’s position on refunding all tariffs declared illegal by the Supreme Court has been slow to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":11497,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[2],"tags":[3028,12,1550,64,10063,5824,10062,6869,74],"class_list":["post-11496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-donald-trump","tag-administration","tag-donald-trump","tag-getty-images","tag-president-trump","tag-refunds","tag-the-government","tag-the-supreme-court","tag-the-trump","tag-trump"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@people\/116354266454495310","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11496\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11497"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}