- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:53 pm to Narax
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:53 pm to Narax
quote:The whole point of tariffs is to affect sales. They’re designed to raise prices so fewer imports are bought. That means reduced volume. Reduced volume means lost revenue, lost contracts, and market distortion.
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
Even if a company passes the cost on to consumers, higher prices typically mean fewer units sold. You can “pass it downstream” and still be worse off because total sales drop.
Again. That's the entire point of tariffs.
So yes, the importer paid the tariff. And yes, if there are any refunds, it goes back to them.
1
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:54 pm to Riverside
Per Grok...
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:56 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Why would we have to pay back other countries?
Trump is sticking hard with the lie that other countries pay tariffs.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:57 pm to Ailsa
SCOTUS didn’t order refunds. A concurrence stated refunds may be sought.
The great thing is that I think individualized refund claims will have to be sought which means most will be negative value claims. I don’t think class action style claims are going to be allowed.
The great thing is that I think individualized refund claims will have to be sought which means most will be negative value claims. I don’t think class action style claims are going to be allowed.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:58 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Even if a company passes the cost on to consumers, higher prices typically mean fewer units sold. You can “pass it downstream” and still be worse off because total sales drop.
Try proving those lost sales in court.
quote:
So yes, the importer paid the tariff. And yes, if there are any refunds, it goes back to them.
Nope, every article in the last few months about the pass through to the consumer.
It's cute though you think these companies are going to rip off the taxpayer.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 5:59 pm to Riverside
quote:
So is IEEPA genius.
Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court. The way Trump was using IEEPA was struck down.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:01 pm to redneck hippie
Upheld as a tax, which Obama claimed it wasn’t. Did Obama lie to the American people then?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:06 pm to Narax
quote:
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
I’m here to tell you every one of our suppliers have passed on price increases due to tariffs. So I doubt any company could say they haven’t passed on tariffs to their customers.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:08 pm to Riverside
quote:
Obama lie to the American people then?
I don’t fricking know, dude. You are attempting to steer the conversation into a totally different direction. Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court. Trump’s use of IEEPA was struck down.
I don’t care how you feel. That’s the law.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:10 pm to Narax
quote:
Try proving those lost sales in court.
quote:It's cute you don't know what receipts are.
Nope, every article in the last few months about the pass through to the consumer.
It's cute though you think these companies are going to rip off the taxpayer.
It’s not some abstract “prove you were hurt” exercise. It’s fricking paperwork.
When an importer brings goods into the country, they file entry documents with Customs. Those filings list their value, the tariff, and the rate applied. Customs calculates the duty owed, and the importer pays it. This might blow your mind but that payment is recorded.
If a court later rules the tariff unlawful, the question isn’t who felt the price increase. The question is who the government collected the money from. It collected it from the importer. So the refund goes back to the importer. That’s how tax law works. You return money to the party that paid it.
Articles about pass-through deal with economic effects, not legal payment. Even if consumers paid higher prices, the importer was still the one who paid the tariff at the border.
If the government collected money it had no authority to collect, it refunds it to the party it took it from.
Don't underthink it.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:13 pm to Ailsa
It isn't SCOTUS that could cause that......
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:16 pm to redneck hippie
You were the one who claimed President Trump didn’t have congressional or lawful authority over tariffs which he clearly does.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:20 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
It collected it from the importer. So the refund goes back to the importer. That’s how tax law works. You return money to the party that paid it.
Then file your tariff refund claims in the court of federal claims and spend more money doing so than the amount of tariffs collected. Congratulations, you played yourself.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:24 pm to Riverside
quote:
You were the one who claimed President Trump didn’t have congressional or lawful authority over tariffs which he clearly does.
just not these tariffs Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:29 pm to Riverside
quote:That’s a goalpost shift.
Then file your tariff refund claims in the court of federal claims and spend more money doing so than the amount of tariffs collected. Congratulations, you played yourself.
A minute ago it was about who legally receives a refund. Now it's whether it’s worth the litigation cost?
First point: the refund goes to the importer because they paid it.
Second point: companies routinely file when the amounts justify it. Considering the cases routinely involve millions, filing fees are barely a rounding error.
Trump himself said they could owe companies billions. Does he not know what he's talking about either?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:40 pm to northshorebamaman
... So you agree that it was pointless for you to say
Because I did say they couldn't prove those lost sales in court... and you seem to agree
You seem to have tripped on your own ideas there.
In many cases this was directly in the invoice.
The FTC does not allow junk fees, those fees would have to be refunded.
Fedex is already talking about a customer refund.
This doesn't affect Walmart, but anyone who popped a tariff fee on a receipt it sure does.
Plus the Supreme court has not ruled in a way you are implying, or are you talking about follow on cases?
quote:
The whole point of tariffs is to affect sales. They’re designed to raise prices so fewer imports are bought. That means reduced volume. Reduced volume means lost revenue, lost contracts, and market distortion.
Because I did say they couldn't prove those lost sales in court... and you seem to agree
You seem to have tripped on your own ideas there.
quote:
Articles about pass-through deal with economic effects, not legal payment. Even if consumers paid higher prices, the importer was still the one who paid the tariff at the border.
In many cases this was directly in the invoice.
The FTC does not allow junk fees, those fees would have to be refunded.
Fedex is already talking about a customer refund.
This doesn't affect Walmart, but anyone who popped a tariff fee on a receipt it sure does.
Plus the Supreme court has not ruled in a way you are implying, or are you talking about follow on cases?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 6:57 pm to Ailsa
I was also told (a) the tariffs are not having an effect on the economy and (b) the economy will roar once this money is returned to the proper parties.
Not sure why the President would be concerned about either of those options .
Not sure why the President would be concerned about either of those options .
Posted on 2/27/26 at 7:04 pm to Narax
quote:No, I wouldn’t agree.
... So you agree that it was pointless for you to say
Now, I shouldn’t have had to spell it out for someone with strong opinions on the subject, but the point was to show why your “they just passed it on” argument is invalid.
quote:Irony.
You seem to have tripped on your own ideas there.
quote:On the Supreme Court point, you’re putting words in my mouth. The discussion I've been involved in here has been about the mechanism of potential tariff refunds. That's obviously conditioned on it actually happening. Whether that happens or not does nothing to invalidate my points.
In many cases this was directly in the invoice.
The FTC does not allow junk fees, those fees would have to be refunded.
Fedex is already talking about a customer refund.
This doesn't affect Walmart, but anyone who popped a tariff fee on a receipt it sure does.
Plus the Supreme court has not ruled in a way you are implying, or are you talking about follow on cases?
Or validate yours.
If a company explicitly itemized a “tariff surcharge” on an invoice, that’s a private decision between the seller and the customer. It has nothing to do with who paid the tariff to the federal government. The importer still remitted the duty at the border. That’s the legal tax payment.
The government returns the money to the party that paid it. That doesn’t automatically trigger some FTC “junk fee” cascade. A tariff isn’t a hidden fee. It’s a disclosed cost tied to a government action. With receipts.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 7:24 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
No, I wouldn’t agree.
Now, I shouldn’t have had to spell it out for someone with strong opinions on the subject, but the point was to show why your “they just passed it on” argument is invalid.
No, you picked a completely different line of reasoning.
quote:
Irony
Very much so.
quote:
On the Supreme Court point, you’re putting words in my mouth. The discussion I've been involved in here has been about the mechanism of potential tariff refunds. That's obviously conditioned on it actually happening. Whether that happens or not does nothing to invalidate my points.
You replied to me directly and went into the you'd be worse off...
I didn't read your other posts, I had replied to a different person's statements about the potential court case to come. They will need standing, there is no indication that a class action lawsuit would be accepted.
quote:
If a company explicitly itemized a “tariff surcharge” on an invoice, that’s a private decision between the seller and the customer. It has nothing to do with who paid the tariff to the federal government. The importer still remitted the duty at the border. That’s the legal tax payment.
AND...
quote:
If someone receives a refund for a payment they did not originally fund, they are obligated to return it. Keeping it is often considered illegal.
Money refunded after a payment is generally considered an error or unjust enrichment, and the recipient must return it, as keeping it is often legally classified as unjust enrichment or even theft. The original payer has a legal right to recover funds paid by mistake, and financial institutions will typically reverse these transactions.
quote:
The government returns the money to the party that paid it. That doesn’t automatically trigger some FTC “junk fee” cascade. A tariff isn’t a hidden fee. It’s a disclosed cost tied to a government action. With receipts.
They can't hold it if it was in the receipt.
That said I think we are both assuming each other's positions are broader than stated, as you seem to now be saying that if a future case demands the return of payments to the group that wrote the check to customs (Which has not happened), and I am focused on the court case to happen, where the plaintiffs need to gain standing.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 7:44 pm to Narax
quote:
That said I think we are both assuming each other's positions are broader than stated,
So lets reset so you're clear on my points.
First layer: who paid the tariff. That’s not debatable. The importer remits the duty to Customs. It’s recorded under their entry number. That’s the legal taxpayer.
Second layer: whether a future case succeeds. Standing, class actions, venue, Supreme Court review, all of that is procedural. None of it changes the basic rule that if a tariff is invalidated, refunds go to the party that paid the government.
Third layer: private pass-through on invoices. If a company listed a “tariff surcharge,” that’s a contract issue between seller and buyer. It doesn’t convert the customer into the party that paid Customs. The importer still did.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 7:46 pm
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News