What You Need to Know

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) (Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250). That decision stopped new collections of those IEEPA duties and kicked off the fight over how refunds will be processed.

No. As of March 2026, there is no automatic refund process. CBP has announced a four-step CAPE portal expected to launch in late April 2026, but the portal is still under construction (73% complete on the claim submission component as of the last status update). Even if it launches on time, it only covers unliquidated entries. Liquidated entries require formal CBP protests under 19 U.S.C. Section 1514, and any denials require Court of International Trade litigation. Most importers need to pursue multiple pathways simultaneously. Tariff Refund Solutions, led by California and Washington D.C.-licensed attorney Michael Williams (CIT-admitted, 15+ years in federal tax and complex litigation, former Big Four advisor), handles all three pathways in parallel on contingency.

Sophisticated importers are pursuing three pathways simultaneously: (1) Post Summary Corrections for unliquidated entries, (2) CBP protests for liquidated entries (180-day deadline from liquidation), and (3) protective CIT filings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1581 to preserve rights regardless of how the administrative process plays out. Tariff Refund Solutions is an attorney-led program that files across all three pathways on contingency with no upfront fees.

CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries) is a new module CBP is building inside the ACE platform to process IEEPA tariff refunds. CBP has described a four-step process: claim submission, mass processing, review/liquidation, and refund. The portal was originally estimated to go live in mid-to-late April 2026, but as of the most recent status update, the claim portal was 73% complete, mass processing was 45% complete, and refund processing was 60% complete. Even when launched, the CAPE portal only handles unliquidated entries. Liquidated entries require CBP protests, and denied protests require CIT litigation. Tariff Refund Solutions recommends pursuing all pathways in parallel rather than waiting.

Yes. Our minimum is $250,000 in IEEPA tariffs paid. We typically work with companies that have paid between $1 million and $20 million in IEEPA duties. For importers with smaller claims, the CBP CAPE portal (expected late April 2026) may provide a self-service option once it launches.

It depends on your cash needs, but the math strongly favors contingency for most businesses. As of mid-March 2026, investors are purchasing IEEPA claims at roughly 40 to 70 cents on the dollar, and they keep any interest owed on the claim. Tariff Refund Solutions' contingency fees range from 3% to 28% depending on claim size and recovery pathway, meaning clients keep 72% to 97% of their full refund. On a $5 million claim, for example, selling at 70 cents nets you $3.5 million. Contingency representation at an estimated 8% administrative rate nets you approximately $4.6 million plus interest. The tradeoff is timing: selling gives cash now, while our process may take 4 to 12 months.

The honest answer is that nobody knows the exact timeline yet. We estimate 4 to 12 months depending on the refund pathway, but this is an evolving situation. For context, the IRS Employee Retention Credit, the most recent comparable federal refund at scale, took some claims 3 to 4 years to process. The IEEPA situation involves approximately $166 billion across 53 million entries, and the government is actively appealing the CIT refund order. Our approach puts you in queue across every available pathway simultaneously, so whichever path moves fastest, you are already in line.

ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) is CBP's online trade processing system. The new CAPE refund portal is being built inside ACE, so you will need an ACE account to use it. If you do not have one, apply now. As of late March 2026, CBP is processing applications submitted in mid-February, a backlog of 5 to 6 weeks. As an alternative, Tariff Refund Solutions can work through your customs broker via Power of Attorney to begin the process while ACE access is pending.

Tariff Refund Solutions uses a sliding-scale contingency fee that decreases as your total refund increases. Administrative refunds (PSCs and protests) carry lower fees (8% to 15%) than litigation refunds (15% to 25%). We use a tipping-bucket approach: the total refund tier you reach determines the rate for your entire recovery. If CBP launches the CAPE portal and we obtain refunds through it, our administrative fee is reduced by 50%. There are no upfront costs, no hourly billing, and no fees unless we successfully recover your money.

We pursue every IEEPA refund through three parallel pathways: (1) Post Summary Corrections for entries not yet liquidated by CBP, filed before the 300-day window closes. (2) CBP Protests under 19 U.S.C. Section 1514 for entries already liquidated, filed within 180 days of liquidation. (3) Court of International Trade litigation under 28 U.S.C. Section 1581, filed by our CIT-admitted attorneys to preserve rights and enforce recovery. Most importers need all three because their entries span different statuses. We track every entry and every deadline so nothing falls through the cracks.

No. After the Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs, the administration imposed replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. Section 1862), starting at 10% and increasing to 15%. These tariffs are a separate legal authority and were not part of the Supreme Court case. They are currently in effect and are not refundable through the IEEPA refund process. Our engagement covers IEEPA tariff refunds only.

Tariff Refund Solutions was founded by Michael Williams, a California and Washington D.C.-licensed attorney with 15+ years in federal tax, complex litigation, and CFO-level advisory, admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of International Trade. A former Big Four advisor and CFO at multiple global companies, he has led the recovery of $550M+ in federal tax refunds. Co-founder Gin Venuto is a finance and operations executive with 15+ years of multi-industry experience who architected the operational infrastructure behind that $550M+ recovery system. We combine legal authority with enterprise-grade data and workflow systems to recover what the government owes you. We work on contingency. No upfront fees.

Administrative Order 25-02 says new IEEPA tariff cases invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) "shall be stayed upon commencement," and the court will decide next steps after a "final, unappealable decision." In practice, that means filing is often treated as low-friction "insurance" that preserves rights and keeps a place in line while the refund mechanism gets defined.

More than 1,000 companies have already filed CIT actions to preserve refund rights. Other reporting has put the number in the high thousands, but the key point is that "protective" CIT filings became the mainstream move before and immediately after the Supreme Court ruling.

A very standard pattern looks like this: identify the Importer of Record and the affected entries; pull entry data and proof of payment, especially CBP Form 7501 and ACE reports; file protective CIT litigation to preserve rights; and file protests where it makes sense, and be ready to escalate if CBP denies on "ministerial" grounds.

They are disagreeing about what is most likely to work as the refund "vehicle," not about whether refunds are owed. StenTam's public position is that "the only proper administrative mechanism" is a formal protest (CBP Form 19), not a Post Summary Correction (PSC). Quinn Emanuel describes a mixed approach where CBP may use PSCs and/or protests, or develop a bespoke process, and also highlights CIT litigation as a key option. Other advisers keep PSCs on the table for unliquidated entries but still emphasize litigation to preserve rights if the admin track fails. Bottom line: protests and PSCs are administrative tools with strict timing, and CIT filing is the rights-preservation backstop when CBP won't or can't act.

The stay is a case-management device. Administrative Order 25-02 stays new cases automatically and says the court expects to determine next steps after a final, unappealable decision. For many importers, that actually makes filing more attractive because it preserves rights without immediate litigation burden.

The refund right tracks who legally paid the duties on the entry, typically the Importer of Record, and multiple sources emphasize identifying the Importer of Record early. Downstream buyers that "ate" tariff costs via pricing usually need the IOR to pursue and pass through via contract, not via CBP paying them directly.

Once an entry liquidates, that 180-day clock is the main reason companies move fast because a late protest is typically not accepted. CIT filing is often described as a way to protect claims as entries liquidate and procedural windows narrow.

The CIT is the specialized federal court that hears many trade and customs disputes, including tariff challenges and refund-related cases. For IEEPA refunds, CIT litigation is a major rights-preservation and enforcement tool, particularly if CBP cannot (or will not) administratively issue refunds.

Not necessarily. Many tariff-related cases are filed to preserve rights and then stayed or paused while lead cases (or procedural frameworks) play out. The goal is often to protect deadlines and be positioned for any refund process the court ultimately orders or supervises.

This is general information. Eligibility and strategy depend on facts (entry data, liquidation status, who the IOR is, and which tariff actions applied), so you'll want a specific review before you act.