Community Stories

US Tariffs on Switzerland

pdxleaf
Posts
6,190
Likes
21,195
"President Donald Trump’s first effort to replace the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court is based on a misreading of a 1974 law that allows for temporary trade restrictions due to “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” That is not the same as the balance of trade, which is why courts would ideally enjoin the president's proclamation...."

Washingtonpost editorial, no firewall:
https://wapo.st/4ayW3gm

The article suggests that the courts should rule against the recent 15%. Hard to imagine the court acting within 150 days. Wonder if the court will let it go in the interest of avoiding more uncertainty about how to unravel these new 15% tariffs.
 
gatorcpa
Posts
13,309
Likes
18,419
It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to refund excess tariffs.

They are supposed to decide cases on their merits and let lower courts deal with the details.

BTW, here is non-paywall version of WaPo article:

https://archive.ph/p5e63

gatorcpa
 
Trev
Posts
2,378
Likes
3,105
The Father The Father
They say the tariffs increase income of Americans because of more job opportunities.
Isn't the global tariff amount for most imports increasing to 15% though too? Feels like individual Americans will be paying a lot of import tax on some items that aren't made in the US (and probably never will be). That extra cost would sting and I'd be super cranky about it, especially for industries or niche stuff that's never going to create new jobs locally.
 
Evitzee
Posts
7,680
Likes
14,204
Trev Trev
Isn't the global tariff amount for most imports increasing to 15% though too? Feels like individual Americans will be paying a lot of import tax on some items that aren't made in the US (and probably never will be). That extra cost would sting and I'd be super cranky about it, especially for industries or niche stuff that's never going to create new jobs locally.
US taxes have come down for many people. For a married couple over 65 you get to deduct about $47,000 from your income before any taxes have to be paid. So the effect on the citizen isn't easy to calculate. It all comes down to how one 'feels' about their personal situation.
 
glownyc
Posts
386
Likes
447
Evitzee Evitzee
US taxes have come down for many people. For a married couple over 65 you get to deduct about $47,000 from your income before any taxes have to be paid. So the effect on the citizen isn't easy to calculate. It all comes down to how one 'feels' about their personal situation.
I think it's actually easy to calculate.
Let's use you example of married couples over 65. The deduction for them would be up to $46,700. This included the new temporary(2025-2028) additional deduction of up to $6,000 per person over the age of 65.

However less than half of them would actually see any benefit. For the majority they're income is too low for the additional deduction to make a difference or too high to qualify of it.

For those that would benefit the most their average tax cut would be about $1,100. That's less than the average cost of the tariffs per household. Which means the average effect is going to be a negative one for all of them.
They are still in a much better position than people under 65 who don't get that potential extra $6,000 deduction.
 
gatorcpa
Posts
13,309
Likes
18,419
Trev Trev
Isn't the global tariff amount for most imports increasing to 15% though too?
It's supposed to, but my understanding is that it is now at 10% and Trump has not yet signed an order under his statute of choice to raise it to 15%.
glownyc glownyc
For those that would benefit the most their average tax cut would be about $1,100. That's less than the average cost of the tariffs per household. Which means the average effect is going to be a negative one for all of them.
This makes my point (conveniently ignored in last night's speech) that a tariff is no different economically than a national sales tax, goods and services tax (GST) or value added tax (VAT).

Many people in the US are incredibly misinformed about taxes in general. They see a refund from overpaid income taxes on their annual return and think that the government is doing a great job by cutting taxes. When I try to tell them that they have just given the government an interest-free loan for a year, they look at me funny.

It's kind of the same thing here. People are going to look at their tax returns for 2025 and 2026 and see the line for overall income tax go down and think they've beaten the system. They don't realize that that the increase in prices at the grocery or department store is the shifting of the tax burden from income taxes to tariffs, which do not show up on their income tax returns, but empties their pockets just the same.

gatorcpa
 
Archer
Posts
29,671
Likes
76,829
gatorcpa gatorcpa
They don't realize that that the increase in prices at the grocery or department store is the shifting of the tax burden from income taxes to tariffs, which do not show up on their income tax returns, but empties their pockets just the same.
Of course like all consumption taxes, which this is, it will disproportionally affect lower incomes. Lower income families will pay a larger share of their incomes to these taxes.
 
Dan S
Posts
24,248
Likes
53,993
I've been reading more about the Trade Act of 1974 and the "balance-of-payments crisis" justification for the temporary tariffs. The administration is justifying this by citing the overall trade imbalance, but trade imbalance is obviously not the same thing as balance-of-payments crisis. I think this may likely be found illegal, but since it's only a 150-day temporary measure, the courts may not be able to act quickly enough anyway.
 
Archer
Posts
29,671
Likes
76,829
Dan S Dan S
I've been reading more about the Trade Act of 1974 and the "balance-of-payments crisis" justification for the temporary tariffs. The administration is justifying this by citing the overall trade imbalance, but trade imbalance is obviously not the same thing as balance-of-payments crisis. I think this may likely be found illegal, but since it's only a 150-day temporary measure, the courts may not be able to act quickly enough anyway.
I would assume though that even if they were not able to stop it within the 150 days, if it is found illegal after the fact more refunds would be forthcoming.
 
YY77
Posts
5,986
Likes
28,632
Dan S Dan S
The administration is justifying this by citing the overall trade imbalance, but trade imbalance is obviously not the same thing as balance-of-payments crisis.
I read they argued in courts this was the reason why they went with IEEPA over TA 1974.
 
gatorcpa
Posts
13,309
Likes
18,419
Archer Archer
...if it is found illegal after the fact more refunds would be forthcoming.
Oh, if only it worked like that!

I don't see there being any mechanism for refunds allowed by this administration.

I think that at some future date, there might be a general tax credit being allowed through income tax returns, such as when IRS administered refunds of the 1898 Telecommunications Tax, which took over 100 years to be declared expired by statute.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/js4287

By that time, how many trillions would have been collected? They would need to hyper-inflate the currency to pay it back. If anything, the tariffs refunded would be only a tiny fraction of what was collected.
gatorcpa
 
gbesq
Posts
9,737
Likes
54,449
Given that 22 million Americans lost premium subsidies for their ACA insurance at the end of 2025 - and Congress, the President and the Supreme Court stood around and did nothing - I’m very sure that the American people who paid for the tariffs will not be getting any of that money back.
 
Archer
Posts
29,671
Likes
76,829
gatorcpa gatorcpa
Oh, if only it worked like that!
It's working like that right now with the FedEx lawsuit, so not sure what you are specifically trying to say. Are you saying that lawsuit is somehow not legit?
 
gatorcpa
Posts
13,309
Likes
18,419
Archer Archer
Are you saying that lawsuit is somehow not legit?
No. I'm saying that the lawsuit was made simply to protect FedEx's rights to a refund, whenever a mechanism to refund is determined.

We do this in my practice all the time to ensure that a statute of limitation on refund claims continues to run regardless of how slowly the wheels of justice turn. I've submitted claims for $1, simply to extend the time we have to compute what the real number should be.

gbesq gbesq
I’m very sure that the American people who paid for the tariffs will not be getting any of that money back.
Here's the rub. Most people did not pay the tariffs directly. Only those who are actual importers of goods pay directly. Large companies with in-house customs people pay tariffs directly to the US Government. Think Amazon and Macy's. They should get refunds. Their customers won't, because the tariff is built into the price.

Why do you think the Government went nuts when some foreign online retailers began showing their customers the tariffs in a separate line on invoices?

Most import transactions are handled through a customs broker. But that broker either works for a common carrier like FedEx, or is independent and charges their own fees for service. Since the brokers are the ones with the accounts with Customs, they are the ones paying the tariff directly, and I suspect will be the only ones entitled to refunds. Again, that's why FedEx sued, they are a customs broker.

How or if these brokers choose to share refunds with their clients may be left up to them.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/24/economy/tariff-refunds-consumers

gatorcpa
 
Archer
Posts
29,671
Likes
76,829
gatorcpa gatorcpa
whenever a mechanism to refund is determined.
The lower courts would do this via court orders I suspect. They don't always mean much to this administration, but that's another discussion I guess.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Tony C.

A Unique Vintage Longines, and its Connection to One of the “Princes of Precision”

Tony C. Longines Watches
omegastar
omegastar
Posts
39
Views
23K