by Mike Devereaux, Partner, Wipfli Advisory, LLC

Key takeaways

• Manufacturing businesses need to properly account for tariffs on their taxes, or face problems around taxable income, timing of deductions and missed opportunities.
• Tariff costs depend on the type of good being tariffed, with capital equipment, raw materials and R&D supplies all treated differently from a tax perspective.
• Additional wrinkles like R&D tax credits and IEEPA tariff refunds could also change your tariff tax exposure.

Tariffs are now  for U.S. manufacturing companies sourcing capital equipment and raw materials globally. This means business leaders need to better understand the rules, especially as  have created additional complications.

Misclassification when accounting for tariffs can affect taxable income, timing of deductions and missed opportunities. Keep reading to learn more about how tariffs affect your business from a tax perspective.

Tariff costs depend on the nature of the goods

From a federal income tax perspective, the proper treatment for tariff costs largely depends upon the nature of the goods on which the tariffs are being charged. That is, in most cases, the treatment of the tariff will follow the tax treatment of the underlying asset or good that is being imported into the United States.

Tariffs on capital equipment, raw materials and R&D supplies all have different tax treatments.

How tariffs affect capital equipment

When a tariff is incurred related to the import of machinery and equipment, the tariff is generally treated as part of the asset鈥檚 acquisition costs. The tariff is capitalized into the tax basis of the asset, along with purchase price, freight and installation costs.

Once capitalized, the tariff cost would be recovered through the same depreciation methodology as the underlying asset. Most machinery and equipment is depreciated via MACRS over five or seven years.

In addition, taxpayers can accelerate the depreciation and cost recovery with tools like 100% bonus depreciation and Section 179 expensing, subject to current law limitations and phase-down schedules.

How tariffs affect raw materials and inventory

Tariffs assessed on imported raw materials are generally treated as inventoriable costs. That is, the tariff is capitalized into the cost of inventory, along with the purchase price of the raw materials and related inbound freight.

The tariff is part of the cost of goods sold and is deducted when the underlying inventory is sold. Some manufacturers expecting tariffs to be levied on their raw materials for the foreseeable future may want to consider the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method of accounting for their inventories:

• LIFO accounting can be advantageous when costs are rising.
• But other requirements exist with LIFO, such as book-tax conformity and a requirement to stay on LIFO for at least five tax years.
• Companies considering LIFO should examine their internal cost accounting systems, for both book and tax purposes, to make sure that the system appropriately captures tariffs.
• If not, a change in accounting method should be considered prior to adopting LIFO.

How tariffs affect R&D supplies

Like capital equipment and raw materials, the cost of tariffs on R&D supplies follows the treatment of the cost of the underlying asset or good. As such, if the underlying supplies are materials used in the conduct of research, the tariffs would follow the same treatment.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) differentiated the treatment of domestic and foreign research expenditures for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Effective for tax years 2018 and thereafter, the TCJA required research costs to be capitalized and recovered over the applicable period. The recovery period for domestic research expenses was set at five years, with foreign research expenses to be amortized over 15 years.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) gave manufacturers relief for :

• For tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, domestic research expenditures are once again deductible as they are paid or incurred.
• Moreover, a transition rule exists whereby taxpayers can 鈥榗atch up鈥� their unamortized research expenditures from tax years 2022 through 2024; and small taxpayers are allowed to amend prior years鈥� returns to deduct the research expenditures otherwise capitalized on the originally filed tax return.
• For manufacturers using imported supplies in the conduct of research, such as prototype materials, molds or dies and automation supplies, the tariffs will follow the treatment of research supplies or materials.
• For tax years 2025 and beyond, most manufacturers will choose to deduct their research expenditures, and thereby the related tariff levied on those supplies and materials, as they are paid or incurred.

Tariffs may offer a hidden tax benefit for R&D activities

Given that the tariff amount follows the treatment of the underlying property, a manufacturer鈥檚 inquiry might turn to whether those costs can also . If a manufacturer imports chemicals, prototype materials, or other non-depreciable property that qualify as supplies under Section 41, the tariff embedded in their acquisition cost should generally be included in the amount paid or incurred for those supplies.

The tax code focuses on the 鈥渁mount paid or incurred鈥� for supplies used in the conduct of research. Because the tariff is part of the acquisition cost of the imported supply, the tariff should generally be included in that 鈥渁mount paid or incurred,鈥� assuming the underlying item is a qualifying research credit supply and is used in the conduct of qualified research.

For expensive prototype materials or molds/dies used in the conduct of domestic research, the tariffs levied on those supplies can significantly increase the amount of qualified research expenditures and thereby the tax credit. This rewards companies more when they are increasing their R&D costs.

Supreme Court ruling creates ambiguity on accounting for tariff refunds

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) . The majority opinion did not address tariff refunds and the dissenting opinion noted the process is likely to be a 鈥渕ess.鈥�

Significant uncertainty exists, independent of the proper tax treatment of any potential refunds. Only the importer of record is eligible for the refund, but many suppliers passed those costs onto their customers. As a result, many manufacturers will need to look into whether the ruling affects their rights and obligations under contracts with vendors and customers. That is, even if a manufacturer isn鈥檛 the importer of record, they may still seek or be legally obligated to a refund from their vendor.

It is also important to note that the Supreme Court ruling was limited to tariffs assessed under IEEPA, .

Established tax principles provide a framework for tariff refund scenarios

Although some uncertainty remains regarding refund administration and timing, established tax principles provide a framework for addressing several common tariff-refund scenarios. The appropriate treatment generally depends on how the original tariff was treated, whether the related property remains on hand, and when the taxpayer鈥檚 right to the refund becomes fixed under its accounting method.

• Raw materials already sold: A refunded tariff is generally included in taxable income under the tax benefit rule to the extent the earlier inventory or cost-of-goods-sold treatment reduced tax. The inclusion generally occurs when the right to the refund becomes fixed under the taxpayer鈥檚 accounting method.
• Self-employment tax: Some tariff refunds may be taxable for federal income tax purposes without being included in net earnings from self-employment.
• Raw materials still in inventory: If the goods that generated the refund remain on hand when the refund right becomes fixed, the refund generally reduces the cost or value of inventory rather than creating current taxable income, provided the adjustment is properly treated as an inventory cost adjustment.
• Capital equipment: A tariff refund tied to capital equipment is generally treated as a basis adjustment under IRC Section 1016 and Treasury Regulation Section 1.1016-3, rather than as a simple tax-benefit-rule recovery. If the asset remains owned and has a remaining adjusted basis, the taxpayer generally reduces the basis and adjusts depreciation prospectively over the remaining recovery period. If  or  was claimed, the basis decrease may reduce otherwise allowable depreciation in the year the decrease is taken into account. If the asset is fully recovered or was disposed of before the refund right became fixed, the recovery generally is reflected through basis and gain-or-loss mechanics. Taxpayers should coordinate the implementation with their fixed asset specialists.
• R&D tax credit supplies: If a refunded tariff was included in the cost of supplies used in qualified research, the taxpayer may need to revisit its Section 41 qualified research expense calculation. If the original credit year remains open, the taxpayer generally should recompute the credit by reducing qualified research expenses for the refunded tariff. If the year is closed, the issue is better analyzed under the general credit-recovery rule of IRC Section 111(b), which may increase tax in the refund year to the extent the earlier research credit reduced tax. This approach is similar to the treatment the IRS has applied to Employee Retention Tax Credit recoveries.

How Wipfli can help

We advise manufacturers on tariff impact, tax planning, R&D tax credits and supply chain strategy. Let鈥檚 talk about how we can help your manufacturing business navigate tariffs to reduce risk, improve cash flow, and make more informed sourcing and investment decisions.聽

| FEMA Member since 2021

“We’ve come to a deal with Canada,” Trump said Wednesday, adding that it’s “subject to finalization of documents.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney remained more cautious, saying on social media that Ottawa and Washington “are now moving towards an agreement.”

The planned U.S. tariffs, set at 50%, were originally due to take effect Wednesday on select Canadian goods.

But Trump announced late Tuesday that he would delay their rollout by three days as both sides worked to finalize a deal.

Carney on Wednesday applauded his Canada-U.S. trade minister, Dominic LeBlanc, and Trump’s top negotiator Jamieson Greer, for “significant progress” in the negotiations.

LeBlanc, in a separate social media post, said he met again with Greer in Washington on Wednesday and the sides were “working collaboratively towards a finalized agreement.”

Emerging from the meeting, Greer, who is the U.S. trade representativie, expressed confidence that both sides have a pact that will “strengthen the North American economy.”

“While we certainly, I think, have eliminated some of the irritants that we’ve had over the past year, we also are taking a strong foot forward on the next steps,” he said, according to CNBC.

Carney said late Tuesday that there remained work to do before the deal was final. Details on a prospective agreement remain unclear.

Trump said Wednesday it would benefit U.S. farmers, who have complained about restricted access to Canadian markets.

In announcing the 50% tariffs, the White House alleged “discriminatory treatment” by Canada against U.S. alcohol, automobile and dairy products.

Carney said the deal secures “the best terms in each of Canada’s most important strategic sectors and (provides) greater certainty about our future trading relationship.”

Trump’s tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum and forest products have hurt Canada’s economy. Securing relief from those duties has been a priority for Ottawa through weeks of negotiations.

Canada on July 1 also confirmed it wanted to renew the existing North American free trade agreement, but Trump declined to do so, demanding substantial changes.

The sides have been engaged in intense talks for weeks on a revised agreement.

Source:

The administration says the tariffs are intended to encourage stronger enforcement against goods produced with forced labor and are being implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974鈥攁 legal authority previously used for tariffs on China that has withstood court challenges.

For equipment manufacturers and suppliers, the biggest concern is the potential impact on costs and supply chains. While some products鈥攊ncluding oil, fertilizers, and goods already subject to existing steel and aluminum tariffs鈥攁re exempt, many imported components and materials could become more expensive. Business groups warn that those higher costs are likely to work their way through the supply chain.

The National Retail Federation urged the administration to pursue trade agreements that lower trade barriers rather than increase them, noting that higher tariffs ultimately raise costs for businesses and consumers. Analysts also caution that while the new tariffs are similar to those already in place, continued changes to U.S. trade policy make it more difficult for manufacturers, distributors and importers to plan inventory, pricing and sourcing strategies.

Although the immediate financial impact may be modest compared with previous tariff rounds, additional trade actions remain under consideration, meaning equipment manufacturers should continue monitoring developments that could affect material costs, imported components and overall supply chain planning.

Source: Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press, via

President Donald Trump on Monday issued several proclamations to impose an additional 50% tariff, starting Aug. 19, on many key imports from Canada, regardless of whether the goods originated through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The tariffs apply to a wide variety of products, ranging from raw agricultural and natural materials to chemicals, textiles, consumer goods, wood products, paper, machinery and tools, per annexes provided with each proclamation and reviewed by Supply Chain Dive. 

The duties apply to all covered goods, regardless of whether they originate under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, per released by the White House. However, the tariffs will not apply to energy, potash, products subject to Section 232 tariffs, and certain other goods, such as fish and critical minerals.

Trump imposed the maximum tariff under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 after formally finding that Canada鈥檚 trade practices in various key sectors discriminated against the U.S. The findings were detailed in three separate proclamations, on tariffs tied to ,  and  imports from the country.

For example, the White House said Canada imposed duties and quotas on cars imported from the U.S. but not on vehicles from other countries. The White House also pointed out that Canada administers quotas that compel U.S. auto companies to invest in production there, rather than the U.S. In addition, the country has maintained a 25% tariff on U.S. motor vehicles that do not qualify for preferential duty-free treatment under the USMCA.

Other actions by Canada justifying the latest tariffs include most of the country鈥檚 provinces and territories halting the purchase, distribution or retailing of U.S. alcoholic beverages while not imposing similar restrictions on other countries, per the fact sheet.

Also, Canada has established tariff-rate quotas on U.S. cheese more restrictive than those imposed on imports from the European Union, despite Canada having trade agreements with the U.S. and the EU, according to the fact sheet.

鈥淭he United States, U.S. businesses and workers, and U.S. commerce suffer from Canada鈥檚 discriminatory, unequal, and unreasonable tariff scheme,鈥� Trump said in the motor vehicle proclamation.

Source:

Section 232 tariffs, which primarily affect imported metals and derivative products, were originally implemented during President Trump’s first term. According to the Administration, the tariffs are intended to support domestic industries and address national security concerns related to imports.

The new Proclamation makes the following adjustments to the tariffs, effective June 8 through the end of 2027:

• A temporary tariff reduction from 25% to 15% on certain types of ag, construction and mobile industrial equipment identified in Annex I-C when imported from qualifying trade-deal countries. (See full list of equipment below.)
• A lower threshold for products to qualify as being made 鈥渆ntirely鈥� from U.S. steel, from 95% to 85%.
• 10% lower tariffs on products made in another country with at least 85% U.S. metals, measured by weight.
• Special provisions for USMCA products, including a 25% duty on only the non-U.S. content of the product.

The White House said the modifications are intended to address national security concerns while encouraging investment and domestic production in sectors including agriculture, housing and manufacturing.

In the Proclamation, President Trump stated that the temporary modifications take into account the role these products play in U.S. economic activity while maintaining the broader tariff framework established under previous Section 232 actions.

The changes could reduce tariff costs for some equipment manufacturers that source components globally or manufacture products outside the United States. The relief comes as OEMs continue to report mixed financial results, with many citing tariffs among the factors affecting their businesses.

Recent reports from OEMs highlight the ongoing impact:

Caterpillar: Consolidated operating profit rose 20% to $3.1 billion in the first quarter, driven by a $940 million positive sales volume impact but offset in part by an additional $710 million in manufacturing costs, including higher tariff-related expenses. The company estimated its full-year 2026 tariff costs between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion. CFO Kyle Epley said during the earnings call that the estimate does 鈥渘ot currently include any IEPA-related refunds as the result of the Supreme Court’s decision.鈥�

CNH Industrial (parent company of Case and New Holland): Global net sales in CNH鈥檚 construction equipment segment were down 3% year-over-year to $574 million. In the first quarter, the construction business posted a $28 million loss in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes. Contributing factors included lower sales volumes in North and South America, higher tariffs, higher trade show marketing costs and labor cost inflation, partially offset by improved equipment pricing.

Komatsu: While the Japanese manufacturer finished its 2025 fiscal year with global and North American construction, mining and utility equipment sales up year-over-year, operating income declined. Global construction, mining and utility equipment net sales increased 0.2% to $24.1 billion, while operating income for the segment fell 18% to $3.1 billion.

Kubota: Consolidated revenue for the first quarter increased 13.7% to $5.1 billion, and operating profit rose 59.1% year-over-year to $616.4 million. The company cited higher sales volumes and pricing adjustments in North America as key drivers, while noting approximately $150 million in additional costs related to U.S. tariffs.

Volvo CE: Volvo CE is shuttering its Rokbak articulated hauler business, citing rising operational and supply chain costs and global trade challenges, including U.S. tariffs. The company said these factors have significantly affected financial performance.

In response to the Proclamation, the Association of 婷婷激情五月天 Manufacturers (AEM) issued a statement supporting the changes, stating that the tariff reductions could help lower input costs and ease supply chain pressures for equipment manufacturers and farmers. AEM also said the action reflects the challenges manufacturers face when expanding domestic production capacity while remaining globally competitive.

Source:

Darren Coppock says companies have largely absorbed higher costs tied to tariffs on ingredients used in pesticides and herbicides, but he warns that won鈥檛 last. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e seen some projections already that show production costs are going to go up this year,鈥� Coppock said, adding that tariff impacts are starting to 鈥渂leed all the way through into farm prices.鈥�

He also says tariffs on lumber and steel are complicating efforts to expand domestic fertilizer production, citing elevated construction costs and a lack of predictability. Coppock told Brownfield that sudden tariff changes鈥攁nd uncertainty about how high they will be or how long they鈥檒l remain in place鈥攎ake long-term investment decisions difficult when new plants require multi-year planning horizons.

Tariff concerns intensified over the weekend after President Trump threatened new 100% tariffs on Canadian products following Canada鈥檚 trade deal with China. Coppock noted that U.S. farmers rely on Canadian potash, a potassium based salt, and so far supplies and prices have remained relatively stable.

Source:

Deere will lay off 238 employees across factories in Waterloo, Iowa, and Moline and East Moline, Illinois. The move follows weaker financial results and higher costs that have reshaped the company鈥檚 2025 outlook.

Deere reported a 26% drop in net income alongside a 9% decline in sales so far this year. Management linked the downturn to softer commodity prices that have tempered producer purchases and to a sharp rise in tariff expenses.

鈥淭ariff costs in the quarter were approximately $200 million, which brings us to roughly $300 million in tariff expense year to date,鈥� said Josh Beal, Director of Investor Relations at Deere.

The company now expects tariff costs to reach $600 million in 2025, up from a prior forecast of $500 million. Those costs are part of a broader trade backdrop. Since April, the U.S. has imposed wide-ranging tariffs of 10%鈥�50% on most imports, with higher rates for dozens of countries and industries. The average tariff rate is now estimated at 18.6%, the highest since 1933.

Source:

For shortline farm equipment manufacturers, this means you鈥檒l need to determine whether any of your imported products are affected and accurately report the steel and aluminum content value when submitting entry documents to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

While there鈥檚 no one-size-fits-all solution, here鈥檚 a summary of what could help you, along with strategies and tips from Marc Schneider, a business advisor at the Center for Industrial Research and Service (CIRAS) at Iowa State University:

Mitigation Strategies

These approaches can help reduce the financial impact if your products are subject to the 50% tariff:

• Steel Valuation vs. Total Price
  The 50% tariff applies only to the steel content value within an imported product鈥�not the total price. This may include the cost of steel components but exclude non-steel parts, processing, and overhead.
  • Work with suppliers to break out steel vs. non-steel costs on your invoices.
  • Request a certificate of steel content from suppliers if your products include mixed materials (e.g., 50% plastic, 50% steel).
• Duty Deferment
  To assist with cash flow management, consider using a bonded warehouse. Your goods remain legally 鈥渋n transit鈥� until they鈥檙e used, which can delay payment of the tariff 鈥� though it will still apply eventually.
• First Sale Pricing
  If you buy steel through a wholesaler, you may be able to declare the import value based on the original producer鈥檚 price rather than the reseller鈥檚 price. However, this requires transparency from middlemen, which can be challenging.

Avoidance Strategies

These options focus on reducing or avoiding the 50% tariff altogether:

• Source from Countries with Lower Tariffs
  Some countries currently face reduced rates:
  • United Kingdom: 25%
  • South Korea: Possibly 15% (not yet finalized)
  • European Union: Reduced rates are under negotiation
  • Canada & Mexico: Potential lower rates under USMCA rules
    Also consider the 鈥渕elt and pour鈥� requirement, which determines tariff eligibility based on where the steel was melted and poured, not just where it was finished.
• Source Domestically (0% tariff)
  Domestic steel may be more expensive upfront but could be cost-effective overall once tariffs, freight, and import fees are factored in. CIRAS offers a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model to help evaluate options.
• Re-Engineering Products
  In some cases, redesigning equipment to use less steel or alternative materials could help reduce exposure to tariffs, though feasibility depends on the application.

Industry Trends: The 鈥淲ait-and-See鈥� Approach

Many manufacturers are holding off on major changes while waiting for:

• Trade negotiations with specific countries to conclude
• Ongoing court cases that could affect the federal government鈥檚 tariff authority (courts have upheld Section 232 tariffs, but challenges remain around measures based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
• Adjustments in global production locations and trade flows

Key Recommendation

Because the rules are complex and the stakes are high, we strongly recommend working with a formal import expert:

• Licensed customs broker
• Freight forwarder
• International trade attorney

These experts can help you calculate the correct steel and aluminum values for your shipments and ensure compliance.

Disclaimer

CIRAS鈥檚 mission is to summarize what we are seeing in the industry, share best practices,聽and to help manufacturers navigate their way through some of these changes. We are NOT legal experts, international customs agents or political advisors so the members of FEMA should always seek professional legal or customs advice where needed.

FEMA Member Legal Benefits

This article was prepared with guidance from John Turlais, partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, who provided insight into the legal considerations surrounding Section 232 and IEEPA-based tariffs.

As part of your membership, FEMA members are eligible for a free, 60-minute confidential legal consultation with attorneys at Foley & Lardner LLP who specialize in dealer contract law. To schedule a consultation, contact Foley & Lardner at (414) 319-7303.

At a recent town hall at Cedar Ridge Distillery, community members discussed how tariff-driven uncertainty is hitting farmers and manufacturers. Soybean farmer Matthew Willimack described a 鈥渄ouble-edged sword,鈥� with tariffs raising input costs while also discouraging exports, particularly to China.

“Tariffs are money that we’re paying to the government, and we have to pass on to our customers in some cases,” Kinze Manufacturing VP of Supply Chain Management Richard Dix said. “In some cases, we absorb those directly as well, and it takes away from our bottom line.”

Cedar Ridge CEO Jeff Quint said they鈥檝e halted international investments, especially as bourbon remains a frequent target for foreign tariffs.

Iowa State economist Chad Hart added that Iowa鈥檚 globally dependent economy is feeling the strain. Export costs remain murky, and there鈥檚 concern China may turn to other suppliers like Brazil. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to manufacture profitability on a soybean acre today,鈥� Willimack said.

Representatives from Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley’s offices attended the meeting to hear local concerns.

Source:

The short-term relief will allow the appeals process to proceed, after the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday barred most of the tariffs announced since Trump took office, ruling that he had overstepped his authority.

Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has moved to reconfigure U.S. trade ties with the world while using levies to force foreign governments to the negotiating table.

But the stop-start tariff rollout, impacting both allies and adversaries, has roiled markets and snarled supply chains.

Prior to the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, known as an administrative stay, the White House was given 10 days to halt affected tariffs.

The Trump administration called the ruling “blatantly wrong,” expressing confidence that the decision would be overturned on appeal.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the judges “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump.”

Leavitt said the Supreme Court “must put an end” to the tariff challenge, while stressing that Trump had other legal means to impose levies.

A separate ruling by a federal district judge in the U.S. capital found some Trump levies unlawful as well, giving the administration 14 days to appeal.

‘Hiccups’
Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told Fox Business that “hiccups” sparked by the decisions of “activist judges” would not affect talks with trading partners, adding that three deals are close to finalization.

Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro told reporters after the appellate stay that the administration had earlier received “plenty of phone calls from countries” who said they would continue to “negotiate in good faith,” without naming those nations.

Trump’s import levies are aimed partly at punishing economies that sell more to the United States than they buy.

The president has argued that trade deficits and the threat posed by drug smuggling constituted a “national emergency” that justified the widespread tariffs — a notion the Court of International Trade ruled against.

Trump unveiled sweeping duties on nearly all trading partners in April, at a baseline 10% — plus steeper levies on dozens of economies including China and the European Union, which have since been paused.

The U.S. trade court’s ruling quashed these blanket duties, along with those that Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China separately using emergency powers.

But it left intact 25% duties on imported autos, steel and aluminum.

Beijing — which was hit by additional 145% tariffs before they were temporarily reduced to make space for negotiations — reacted to the trade court decision by saying Washington should scrap the levies.

“China urges the United States to heed the rational voices from the international community and domestic stakeholders and fully cancel the wrongful unilateral tariff measures,” said commerce ministry spokeswoman He Yongqian.

Asian markets rallied May 29, U.S. indexes closed higher while Europe closed slightly down.

‘Extraordinary Threat’
The trade court was ruling in two separate cases — brought by businesses and a coalition of state governments — arguing that the president had violated Congress’s power of the purse.

The judges said the cases rested on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) delegates such powers to the president “in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”

The judges stated that any interpretation of the IEEPA that “delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”

Analysts at London-based research group Capital Economics said the case may end up with the Supreme Court, but would likely not mark the end of the tariff war.

Source: