As the U.S. tariff and refund environment and processes evolve, how companies handle their specific situations at the outset could have complex and potentially irreversible downstream implications.

A lack of cross-functional coordination, inconsistent data and poor documentation now could result in unexpected financial, tax and compliance outcomes later, and decisions may lock companies into positions that are difficult to unwind. Carefully analyzing tariff-related decisions and coordinating responses among different business functions when submitting refund claims can help position companies to receive appropriate amounts while managing tax, accounting and compliance goals.

Below are three potential pain points companies should consider as they navigate their own unique tariff refund situations and contemplate future trade-related business decisions.

Refund timing

The issue: Following the Supreme Court’s February decision striking down the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has begun refunding tariffs previously imposed under IEEPA. CBP is rolling out the scope of entry types importers can file for in phases.

The first phase, which launched in April, has processed simpler entries on which IEEPA duties were paid within certain time limits, but entries flagged for reconciliation and other categories that were more complex were to be addressed in later phases. CBP communicated a general 90-day timeframe for refund receipt, but many refunds are coming in piecemeal, making it difficult to track filing and receipt.

All importers of record who may be entitled to IEEPA tariff refunds could be affected by this.

Companies may receive large refunds but lack clear guidance on timing and how to treat them for tax and accounting purposes. There may be multiple valid accounting approaches, so improved coordination within a company’s different business functions can help prevent inconsistencies that might get flagged in an audit.

Companies that are entitled to a refund should monitor information coming from CBP about the refund process. Due to the evolving policy landscape, uncertainty about refund timing and the Trump Administration’s shifts from one form of tariff to another in the wake of legal challenges, companies that may be expecting refunds have, in some cases, been waiting to determine how to account for them.

Companies should confirm enrollment in the Automated Clearing House (ACH) Refund program, which is required to receive refunds from CBP. It also is important to determine and document when imports took place and to segment entries by status, including whether they were flagged for reconciliation, were suspended, extended or under review, to determine in what phase they might be addressed and how and when to recognize and record potential refunds for tax and accounting purposes. Importers also need to consider the legal implications on entries that are finally liquidated but not subject to pending judicial action, as the government maintains such entries are ineligible for refunds. That point is undergoing review in the courts.

Transfer pricing

Many potential refunds involve intercompany transactions — so refunds might affect transfer pricing adjustments or require additional documentation. How to treat a potential refund applied to an intercompany transaction will depend on accounting considerations, with input and guidance from auditors about how a refund is recorded in financial statements and how it is treated for tax accounting purposes.

Companies with intercompany transactions may have more complex tariff and refund situations. Many of the intercompany entries are falling outside of Phase 1 of tariff refunds because their customs entries have been flagged for reconciliation. The refunds will be received by the importer of record, and if that importer is a limited-risk distributor, functionally, it did not bear the duties, and there will need to be an adjustment to profit.

Refunds can result in a reduction of the cost of goods sold, which may have tax repercussions. Reconciliation creates a timing issue and an economic question about where and when to assign the refund. Importantly, transfer pricing adjustments to COGS as a result of a tariff refund need to be critically reviewed to understand the impact on customs value and any incremental duties/refunds.

There are also potential Section 1059A issues to consider — tariff refunds can lead to transfer pricing adjustments that create a mismatch with the Section 1059A customs value ceiling, and the mechanisms to make a corresponding customs value adjustment might not be straightforward.

Companies should conduct multi-stakeholder conversations that coordinate among tax, financial reporting, trade and compliance teams. They need to also confirm these teams are accessing consistent and reliable company data and conduct scenario modeling to help determine the appropriate refund approach.

Pillar Two implications

The potential effect of refunds on historical COGS could retroactively increase profits and have implications for a multinational company’s effective tax rate calculations for purposes of the Pillar Two global minimum tax, potentially affecting top-up tax liability. Multinational companies with revenues of at least €750m (about $855 million) that may have top-up tax liability in jurisdictions that have adopted Pillar Two global minimum tax rules could be affected.

This is a new frontier for direct tax and trade practitioners, and coordination among transfer pricing, trade and tax teams is important to see how a refund’s retroactive impacts on COGS might affect Pillar Two calculations. Companies might consider modeling the ETR effects by year.

While these various refund scenarios may present new and unique challenges for companies, they also provide an opportunity to strengthen collaboration across functions in ways that will serve the business financially and strategically going forward amid continuing geostrategic, macroeconomic and trade-policy uncertainties. They can also increase the likelihood of a company recouping the full value of refunds they are owed.