re: Trump sounds the alarm: SCOTUS' decision might FORCE the taxpayer to pay 100's of Billion

quote:

---

Trump knew about it and that is why he re-issued them within an hour using the correct act that covered them. The SCOTUS basicaly showed him how to do it

---

He already knew. He used them his last term.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue tariffs, themselves, are illegal.

In fact, your post begs the question: why didn't he just do that in the first place and skip all this nonsense?

Too bad.

I'm not against tariffs per se but they got aggressive and tried something new. Court said no. That's the way it works. If that means payout, then pay up

Thanks, John for the explanation of its implications.

quote:

---

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.

---

What about the warehouse full of product that came in with 50% tariff that may not be sold for 1-2 years? Think the customer will pay for it then? When tariffs may be 0%? No chance.

quote:

---

we don't need to prove anything except to document every dollar of the illegal tariffs that we paid.

---

Nobody does.

quote:

---

Our transactions are business to business

---

It wouldn't matter if they weren't.

quote:

---

Its obvious that you were desperate to talk about something and tried to shoe horn it into a conversation.

---

Cool, so you agree with all of the following:

-The importer of record pays the tariff to Customs at the time of entry, and that payment is documented under their entry filings.

-If a court later rules the tariff unlawful, the government refunds the duties to the importer of record because that is the party that remitted the tax.

-Whether the importer passed some or all of the cost downstream is an economic incidence question and does not change who legally paid Customs or who receives the refund.

-Any attempt by downstream buyers to recover part of that refund would be a separate contractual or unjust enrichment dispute that arises only after the importer receives the refund from the government.

If you don’t agree, which specific point do you disagree with and why?

You’re funny

quote:

---

If that happens I will agree that you were right, if it doesn't happen then you have to admit that you were wrong.

You are making a prediction of what is going to happen and you seem to be too cowardly to test it.

---

At this point I don’t know if you’re being intentionally obtuse or if you’re genuinely have comprehension issues so I will spell it out yet again as clearly as I can.

You’re trying to reframe this as a prediction so you don’t have to deal with the substance.

Nothing I said is hypothetical. Nothing I said depends on the future.

Tariffs are import taxes. That is present fact.
They are paid by importers to the U.S. Treasury. That is present fact.
If a court rules certain tariffs were unlawfully imposed, refunds go to the entities that paid the duties. That is how the law already works.

There is no “wait and see” component to any of that. I am not predicting that refunds will happen. I am explaining what the legal mechanism is if they do.

You’re trying to turn a structural clarification into a wager about the future so you can call it cowardice and avoid the actual point:

You claimed companies would need to prove losses in court. Refunds of unlawfully collected tariffs are the return of an invalid tax payment, not compensation for business losses or damages..

Here’s what you’re trying to blur with “wait and see”:

You are merging two separate stages.

First: if a tariff is ruled unlawful, the importer who paid the duty gets that money refunded. The only issue is legality. No proof of losses is required.

Second: anything that happens after that, whether importers pass money to customers or others seek reimbursement, is separate and downstream.

My argument stops at stage one. You are trying to drag in stage two to confuse the issue.

This is about how the system works right now, not what might happen later. Nothing that happens in the future changes a single claim I've made. You were incorrect yesterday. You are incorrect now. You will be incorrect in the future.

quote:

---

I understand your problems...

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem...

---

What don't you get?

quote:

---

They would need to show that they weren't passing these costs onto the buyer.

---

Is your above statement true?