Yesterday said:

---

Will there be a refund? It was the law of the land at the time.

---

Not sure we know. The SC said in their own ruling the refunds issue would be a mess to reconcile.

You're assuming they passed it on 100%. In some cases, they were absorbed fully or partially along the chain of production. Outside of an actual receipt that the tariff was 100% passed through, I don't know how you unwind it.

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

Still not illegal. Just a technicality.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Without a specific directive from a court, nothing will be refunded. The Trump administration certainly isn't going to offer payment. As MouthBQ said, it wasn't illegal until it was.

If corporations sue for repayment, I hope some hotshot lawyer files a class action lawsuit on them on behalf of the consumers that ultimately paid the cost.

Best thing is to draw a line in the sand and move forward.

---

I would agree.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Without a specific directive from a court, nothing will be refunded.

Best thing is to draw a line in the sand and move forward.

---

Bessent's comments basically said; countries should agree to the follow the agreements, or else. The else would be what SCOTUS said Trump could do; embargo's on goods (or classes of goods) from a given country.

Refunds are one thing (which might take years of litigation and probably not worth it for companies), the biggest issue is if countries decide based on the ruling to take actions to tariff American goods more in return now. I just don't think that's likely, but we will see, there is always a stooge or two of bit players out there that the Chinese etc. can push to see what the pushback will be.

Many are celebrating the SCOTUS ruling on Trump’s tariffs.

But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is claiming that the SCOTUS ruling was specific to one thing, and they’ll use other authorities to continue tariffs.

Here’s a breakdown of those other authorities 🧵 (1/5) pic.twitter.com/ecm0ECZRPf

— Eric (@Unite_80) February 21, 2026

It's little things like using the word "claims" that kind of make me nuts on stuff like this.

He's not claiming anything as if there is any doubt.

It's a fact that the SC ruled narrowly on using IEPPA as a vector for tariffs.

Ain't gonna be no refund, period. Tariffs by the prez were not ruled illegal, just have to say they are under a different law. Total technicality. Total liberal BS. Three black robes should be deported (not literally).

Not to mention it would be impossible to do accurate accounting of who is due how much. Court battles until the Second Coming. I love lawyers, not.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Ain't gonna be no refund, period. Tariffs by the prez were not ruled illegal, just have to say they are under a different law. Total technicality. Total liberal BS. Three black robes should be deported (not literally).

Not to mention it would be impossible to do accurate accounting of who is due how much. Court battles until the Second Coming. I love lawyers, not.

---

If it makes you feel any better, it only impacted 1/3 of total tariff revenue which is $100B.

That is not even rounding error on anything having to do with government spending or revenue.

This won't even be a blip on anyone's radar in a few weeks.

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

The best move Trump could do is to say if he is forced to pay the funds back to do so in the form of a rebate to taxpayers.

Question: I have mostly been in service industries as opposed to manufacturing or retail so accounting issues were different but wouldn't tariffs fall under Cost Of Goods Sold, COGS?

YouBet said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Ain't gonna be no refund, period. Tariffs by the prez were not ruled illegal, just have to say they are under a different law. Total technicality. Total liberal BS. Three black robes should be deported (not literally).

Not to mention it would be impossible to do accurate accounting of who is due how much. Court battles until the Second Coming. I love lawyers, not.

---

If it makes you feel any better, it only impacted 1/3 of total tariff revenue which is $100B.

That is not even rounding error on anything having to do with government spending or revenue.

This won't even be a blip on anyone's radar in a few weeks.

---

I don't feel bad any.

ETA, I love hawg though

Refunds?

I thought other countries paid the tariffs. We're going to refund other countries their monies? Huh.

Snot happnin

Whoever wrote this Brief is about to pull the "ChatGPT drafted that and it was mistakenly filed" card

The President says the question of tariff refunds is unclear.

The DOJ's motion in the appelate course in the case says: If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs. pic.twitter.com/MWjIvJMJwT

— Ryan Petersen (@typesfast) February 20, 2026

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

I keep telling everyone here that corporations are slimy and CEOs are scumbags.
This thread proves this as well.

The CEO wants to get "his" tariff money back from the Government but does not want to pass it on to his own customers.

What skulduggery and pettifoggery!

hahahahhaha.

How much more proof do people want that the two c-words ("Corporations" and "CEOs") are trash and should be treated as such and not deified and definitely not boot-licked or pampered?

infinity ag said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

I keep telling everyone here that corporations are slimy and CEOs are scumbags.
This thread proves this as well.

The CEO wants to get "his" tariff money back from the Government but does not want to pass it on to his own customers.

What skulduggery and pettifoggery!

hahahahhaha.

How much more proof do people want that the two c-words ("Corporations" and "CEOs") are trash and should be treated as such and not deified and definitely not boot-licked or pampered?

---

When? I haven't seen these posts?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No refunds . It wasnt illegal until it was.

---

yep not a difficult concept to understand yet some think differently lol

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No refunds . It wasnt illegal until it was.

---

yep not a difficult concept to understand yet some think differently lol

---

Point being, the Court could have just said that by making their decision prospective, not retroactive. They are the Supreme Court, they can do that.

1. be megacorp
2. pass tariff cost increases to consumer
3. Wait
4. ?????
5. Refund profit

aggiehawg said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No refunds . It wasnt illegal until it was.

---

yep not a difficult concept to understand yet some think differently lol

---

Point being, the Court could have just said that by making their decision prospective, not retroactive. They are the Supreme Court, they can do that.

---

I think they should doo more and see more clearly

MouthBQ98 said:

---

No refunds . It wasnt illegal until it was.

---

That's actually the opposite of true. The court ruled they were illegal. By your logic, everything anyone does is legal at the time they do it and could never be challenged. We have tax refund cases all the time like this. In fact, depending on the court you choose to litigate, USTC or district court, you have to pay first and then move forward with the suit.

Whatever the government says publicly, they are 100% preparing to have to pay these back. They've been preparing for this for months, even to the extent of pausing decisions in other refund claims previously filed until this decision comes down. Many companies will be able to use a drawback like mechanism to just reduce future payments, so it's not even a problem of writing checks. It's clear on forms filed who paid what kinds of tariffs, so it's not impossible to figure out like one poster here says. It's also insane for this group to yell that tariffs never actually caused price increases to consumers a month ago and to now say they want their own refunds for taxes they never paid nor can quantify.

Im Gipper said:

---

Whoever wrote this Brief is about to pull the "ChatGPT drafted that and it was mistakenly filed" card

The President says the question of tariff refunds is unclear.

The DOJ's motion in the appelate course in the case says: If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs. pic.twitter.com/MWjIvJMJwT

— Ryan Petersen (@typesfast) February 20, 2026

---

Tariffs were NOT held unlawful.

aggiehawg said:

---

Question: I have mostly been in service industries as opposed to manufacturing or retail so accounting issues were different but wouldn't tariffs fall under Cost Of Goods Sold, COGS?

---

Sometimes. If it was an input to the manufacturing or they were purchasing something for resale (think steel to make a trailer or clothes to sell in a store), yes it would end up in inventory and then in COGS when the product is sold. That doesn't change much except the timing of cost recovery in an income statement. It's still an additional economic cost to the business.

Burpelson said:

---

Tariffs were a tax on Americans that they did not want.

---

Don't say "were". Our king threw a fit and proclaimed 10% tax increase across the land!!

Edit: it's 15% now. Lmfao

MagnumLoad said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Whoever wrote this Brief is about to pull the "ChatGPT drafted that and it was mistakenly filed" card

The President says the question of tariff refunds is unclear.

The DOJ's motion in the appelate course in the case says: If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs. pic.twitter.com/MWjIvJMJwT

— Ryan Petersen (@typesfast) February 20, 2026

---

Tariffs were NOT held unlawful.

---

Can you help me understand that statement? Are you saying all of them were lawful or are you saying that outside the IEEPA tariffs, they were lawful?