- 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: Federal Circuit clears path for tariff refunds
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:07 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:07 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Not if consumers covered the entire loss, as TDS folks assert
Every dollar paid was lost profit.
0
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:12 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
All of the executive orders issuing tariffs under the IEEPA have been vacated, and refunds of something between $130 - 175 billion are due. The thousands of refund cases pending before the CIT are free to move forward.
The Supreme Court remanded the refund issue to the district court. Your OP is very misleading.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:18 am to BBONDS25
quote:
The Supreme Court remanded the refund issue to the district court. Your OP is very misleading.
SCOTUS merely affirmed the Federal Circuit opinion. The plaintiffs filed a motion in the Federal Circuit to lift its stay of the CIT ruling, and the DOJ asked for 90 more days so.it could figure out what to do.
Federal Circuit lifted its stay and put mandates in force.
Federal Circuit Order
quote:
O R D E R
Appellees move for the court to immediately issue the
mandates in the above-referenced appeals. Appellants
oppose and cross-move for an order staying the issuance of
the mandates.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Appellees’ motion for immediate issuance of the
mandates in these appeals is granted.
(2) Appellants’ cross-motion to stay the issuance of the
mandates is denied.
(3) The stay of the mandates entered August 29, 2025,
is dissolved. The mandates shall issue forthwith.
The matter of injunctions and refunds is now properly before the CIT.
The CIT Order vacating the executive orders had been stayed, but its now in force.
This post was edited on 3/3/26 at 11:22 am
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's the amount they had seized via illegal tariff.
This isn't a tort claim
Lol
Those rules apply regardless.
A whole lot of people are about to commit fraud
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:49 am to LawTalkingGuy
Be careful. That poster you’re talking to has an LLM
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:53 am to udtiger
"The damage" is established by the money taken via illegal tariffs.
"The extent of the damage" is the amount taken via illegal tariffs.
By showing tariffs were illegally taken and the amount taken?
"The extent of the damage" is the amount taken via illegal tariffs.
quote:
A whole lot of people are about to commit fraud
By showing tariffs were illegally taken and the amount taken?
Posted on 3/3/26 at 11:57 am to EasterEgg
quote:
Are these companies going to issue reciprocal refunds to their customers for the increased costs they passed on?
This isn't an issue because no costs were passed on to the consumer.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 12:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Having the tariffs ruled illegal was bad for the admin.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
I submit a claim to an insurance company that I was a victim of fraud to the tune of $1 million.
I have documents from my bank showing the fraudulent $1 million w/d.
I don't tell the insurance company that the fraudster actually paid me the $ back. So I actually have no damage.
What would you call that?
I have documents from my bank showing the fraudulent $1 million w/d.
I don't tell the insurance company that the fraudster actually paid me the $ back. So I actually have no damage.
What would you call that?
Posted on 3/3/26 at 12:14 pm to udtiger
quote:
I don't tell the insurance company that the fraudster actually paid me the $ back.
That is exactly what’s supposed to happen with the court ruling. It hasn’t yet. I agree with you; if the federal government pays someone back and they file again, that would be fraud.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 1:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Be careful. That poster you’re talking to has an LLM
Good. They will understand federal court procedure.
Posted on 3/3/26 at 5:24 pm to udtiger
quote:You just mixed two different concepts together. Refunds and compensation for damages are not the same. A refund simply returns money that shouldn’t have been taken. Compensation for damages is payment for a proven loss.
He said could.
A party seeking damages has to prove:
a) they suffered the damage
And
b) the extent of that damage.
This is not hard.
Some businesses didnt pay full tariffs (exporter/foreign manufacturers ate some or all of it). Some businesses passed on some or all of the tariff to their customers. Thisnwould reduce or eliminate their claim for refund. This is more complex than is being represented.
Think of a lemonade stand. The kid running the stand goes to buy lemons and gets charged $2 per lemon when the price was supposed to be $1. Later the mistake is discovered. The fix is simple: the seller gives the kid $1 back for each lemon that was overcharged. Nobody asks whether the kid raised lemonade prices or made a profit that day. None of that matters. The kid paid money that shouldn’t have been charged, so the extra dollar is returned.
Now imagine one of the lemonade customers says, “Wait, you charged me more for lemonade because your lemons were expensive, so I deserve that dollar.”
That’s a completely different issue. The refund for the lemons is between the lemon seller and the kid who bought them. If a customer thinks the lemonade price harmed them, that dispute would be between the customer and the lemonade stand. It has nothing to do with the store correcting the original overcharge for the lemons.
The store doesn't issue the refund to the lemonade stand customers.
A refund corrects a mistaken charge by returning money to the person who paid it. These are refunds.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News