- 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
0
Posted on 2/27/26 at 7:54 pm to Ailsa
Tariffs are taxes paid to the government by domestic companies (importers) that bring foreign goods into the country, not by the foreign country itself.
Not paying any foreign entity
Not paying any foreign entity
Posted on 2/27/26 at 8:01 pm to phaz
So no tariff checks ?!!!?!?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 8:26 pm to Narax
quote:
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
No, they wouldn't.
Not at all.
If the county government charges a donut shop twice the business license fee they should have been charged, they owe the donut shop the difference regardless of whether the donut shop raised prices to compensate for the higher fee or not.
This, "They have to prove they didn't pass along the tariff," is just made up nonsense. There's no basis for it at all.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 2/27/26 at 8:29 pm to lsujunky
quote:
I’m here to tell you every one of our suppliers have passed on price increases due to tariffs.
For a year this board has denied this.
It's ready to admit it now?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 8:37 pm to Ailsa
quote:
Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion
The taxpayers in this case are the businesses that had to pay the tax on the import that was determined to be illegal.
You interested in letting the IRS keep your money when they illegally taxed it away from you?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 8:41 pm to Ailsa
Uh...whose gonna enforce that?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 8:51 pm to rumproast
quote:Here’s how the Constitution says it works:
Uh...whose gonna enforce that?
If a federal court rules a tariff unlawful, that judgment binds the executive branch. Customs and Border Protection stops collecting it, and Treasury processes any required refunds. The judiciary interprets the law; the executive administers it.
Who fricking knows under this admin, though.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:07 pm to northshorebamaman
Just end the fraud
Deport the Somalis
Hard labor at Leavenworth for Clinton’s, BLM execs, any. Fraudster
And do it now
Deport the Somalis
Hard labor at Leavenworth for Clinton’s, BLM execs, any. Fraudster
And do it now
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:08 pm to northshorebamaman
I expect a future court case to deal with all of that.
https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/perspectives/who-gets-the-tariff-refund-how-retailers-and-downstream-buyers-can-recover-their.html?id=102mkc5
Its going to be interesting what the courts sort through.
https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/perspectives/who-gets-the-tariff-refund-how-retailers-and-downstream-buyers-can-recover-their.html?id=102mkc5
Its going to be interesting what the courts sort through.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:12 pm to Narax
Uh... did you read what your link says? 
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:17 pm to Narax
You might want to reread your own link.
It explicitly says the “importer of record stands to receive a cash refund” from the U.S. government. That’s the first step in the process. The refund goes to the party that paid Customs.
The entire rest of the article is about whether downstream buyers might try to recover a portion of that refund through contract clauses, cost-plus pricing terms, MFN provisions, or unjust enrichment theories. That’s private litigation after the importer receives the refund.
So thank you for the source. It confirms exactly what I’ve been saying:
The government refunds the importer of record.
Any downstream recovery is a separate contractual fight.
You didn’t refute my point. You reinforced it.
It explicitly says the “importer of record stands to receive a cash refund” from the U.S. government. That’s the first step in the process. The refund goes to the party that paid Customs.
The entire rest of the article is about whether downstream buyers might try to recover a portion of that refund through contract clauses, cost-plus pricing terms, MFN provisions, or unjust enrichment theories. That’s private litigation after the importer receives the refund.
So thank you for the source. It confirms exactly what I’ve been saying:
The government refunds the importer of record.
Any downstream recovery is a separate contractual fight.
You didn’t refute my point. You reinforced it.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:24 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
You didn’t refute my point. You reinforced it.
You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point...
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:32 pm to Narax
quote:Nice try. Just read what you posted.
You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point...
The first sentence literally says: “when the importer of record receives a refund of the IEEPA tariffs it paid to the US government…”
That is exactly what I’ve been saying this entire thread. The importer paid the government. The importer receives the refund.
So explain how your link supports your argument.
Just take the L, dude. Good lord.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:00 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Nice try. Just read what you posted.
You've been arguing with yourself this entire time based on some imaginary case in your head that you admit hasn't happened.
You've ignored what I was talking about when you first responded to me. You seem to want to have a different conversation with me that we still aren't having.
You've ignored everything before of after this imaginary case of yours. That case would obviously happen again and again around the country and eventually make it back to scotus.
Eventually we would get more clarity.
However you are obviously going to keep dismissing standing and class action limitations because you dont want to talk about that, you likewise want to dismiss all the knock on effects that the court will have to deal with in this set of cases.
The courts will have to evaluate harm for standing.
Its going to be a nightmare.
But keep arguing what you want to.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:12 pm to Narax
Wrong. Here are the assertions you made I'm arguing against:
So now you agree with the following?:
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.
If you do what were the above quotes of yours about? If not, how did your link support your arguments and not mine?
quote:
The refunds would be owed to businesses , not governments.
Unlikely, they passed the costs onto the consumers.
quote:
They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.
That's hard and unlikely to work out in their favor.
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.
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?
quote:
They will need standing, there is no indication that a class action lawsuit would be accepted.
quote:
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.
So now you agree with the following?:
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.
If you do what were the above quotes of yours about? If not, how did your link support your arguments and not mine?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:20 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Here are the assertions you made
Yes about standing, someone needs to show legal harm to win in court.
The court is going to have to deal with cases where the entire tariff was a direct B2B pass through, where the importer suffered no damages.
Where all the damages were taken by a 3rd party that was directly billed.
Thats a lot more nuanced than you pretend.
But you seem quite sure, you may be quite surprised in the future.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:33 pm to Narax
quote:
you may be quite surprised in the future.
I'll be surprised if that turns out to be the case as well.
As far as I can see this isn't a civil court case where damages have to be proven.
It's a simple accounting procedure. This is what I paid that the government didn't have the legal authority to make me pay, this is what the government owes me back. I'm sure that there will be legal filings involved to make the claims, but I too will be surprised if "damages" have to be proven beyond simply documenting the amount paid.
Now there may end up being civil cases at some point if some businesses got put out of business by the tariffs, but that would be an entirely separate case. Those businesses would be owed the simple refund plus whatever they were able to prove in court.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:49 pm to Narax
You’re acting like I “now agree” with something new. That’s been my position the whole time, and it’s exactly what I just asked you to acknowledge.
My question was simple: do you agree the importer pays Customs, and if a tariff is invalidated the refund goes to the importer of record? Because you repeatedly argued the opposite by switching to pass-through articles, “prove lost sales,” FTC “junk fee” talk, and standing.
Your own link confirms my points in the first sentence: “when the importer of record receives a refund” Everything in that article is downstream and conditional. It’s about what happens after the importer already got the refund.
So yes, courts may deal with all of that, but that's step 3. You argued step 1 and step 2 weren’t true.
-You conflated economic incidence with legal payment. “Consumers paid it” is about who bears the cost. Refunds are about who paid Customs. Those are different questions.
-You treated pass-through articles as a rebuttal to refund mechanics. Even 100% pass-through doesn’t change who remitted the duty and who the government refunds.
-You demanded proof of lost sales “in court” as if that’s required for a refund. Refunds aren’t damages for lost profits. They’re repayment of duties collected, proved by entry and payment records
I’m not arguing with myself, except in the sense that you haven’t actually offered a counter.
tl;dr: you spent multiple posts arguing that passing costs downstream changes who gets refunded by the government. Your own source explicitly says the government refunds the importer of record first, and only then do downstream parties even have a potential claim.
My question was simple: do you agree the importer pays Customs, and if a tariff is invalidated the refund goes to the importer of record? Because you repeatedly argued the opposite by switching to pass-through articles, “prove lost sales,” FTC “junk fee” talk, and standing.
Your own link confirms my points in the first sentence: “when the importer of record receives a refund” Everything in that article is downstream and conditional. It’s about what happens after the importer already got the refund.
So yes, courts may deal with all of that, but that's step 3. You argued step 1 and step 2 weren’t true.
-You conflated economic incidence with legal payment. “Consumers paid it” is about who bears the cost. Refunds are about who paid Customs. Those are different questions.
-You treated pass-through articles as a rebuttal to refund mechanics. Even 100% pass-through doesn’t change who remitted the duty and who the government refunds.
-You demanded proof of lost sales “in court” as if that’s required for a refund. Refunds aren’t damages for lost profits. They’re repayment of duties collected, proved by entry and payment records
I’m not arguing with myself, except in the sense that you haven’t actually offered a counter.
tl;dr: you spent multiple posts arguing that passing costs downstream changes who gets refunded by the government. Your own source explicitly says the government refunds the importer of record first, and only then do downstream parties even have a potential claim.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:56 pm to Augustus516
quote:
Executive orders are what every intelligent president understood they were for decades before trump:
A bullshite avenue to get your way, and legal jeopardy when proven wrong
No president has been lawfared with everything he does, either. No president has had activist judges issuing hundreds of nationwide injunctions. No president has had the commonly accepted functions of the Chief Executive challenged at every turn.
You are basically asking for Trump to do nothing and just let the deep state ruin the agenda the American people voted for.
Conservatives stuck on how things should be need to open their eyes to how things are. Why is the "principled" move always to do nothing with you guys?
Congress can't even get voter ID which 80% of the country supports passed, but you want to attack Trump for using executive orders. You guys are so willing to lose as long as it's done "the right way."
And Trump has the constitutional authority to issue EOs, so your argument isn't even that. People will claim it's because they aren't permanent, but waiting for congress to do its job produces the same result. So, it's just that you don't like it, because "that's not how it's done." Well, these are unprecedented times. Sometimes, you just have to do what is necessary.
The thing that gets me is how so many conservatives are willing to dump on one of the few people trying to make a positive change just because he is using unconventional methods. It's like you guys are looking for a reason to keep the status quo.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News