The moment the Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs, a new industry was born overnight. Dozens of firms — law practices, consulting groups, financial buyers, and entirely new entities — launched IEEPA tariff recovery services. Some are excellent. Some are mediocre. Some are borderline predatory. And as an importer sitting on a potentially multi-million dollar refund claim, you need to tell the difference before you share your data.
This guide isn’t about naming names. It’s about giving you a framework to evaluate any firm that approaches you — or any firm you approach — for IEEPA tariff recovery assistance. We’ll cover the types of firms in the market, what to look for, what questions to ask, red flags to watch for, and how fee structures work.
Full disclosure: we’re one of these firms. Tariff Solutions provides free Impact Assessments and helps importers navigate recovery paths including government filing and immediate capital. We believe we meet every standard outlined below — and we think you should hold us to them.
Types of IEEPA Tariff Recovery Firms
Not all firms offer the same services, and understanding what type of firm you’re dealing with helps set expectations.
Advisory firms
These firms guide you through the recovery process but don’t file claims themselves. They analyze your entry data, recommend recovery paths, and connect you with customs brokers or attorneys for execution. Their value is in expertise and strategy — especially useful for importers with complex portfolios spanning multiple recovery paths.
Fee model: Usually a percentage of recovered amount (10–25%) or flat project fees.
Best for: Mid-size importers who need guidance but have broker relationships for execution.
Customs brokerage firms
Your existing customs broker may offer IEEPA recovery services as an add-on. Since they already file your entries and have your ACE data, they have a natural advantage: they know your portfolio intimately and can file PSCs and protests directly.
Fee model: Per-filing fees, hourly rates, or a percentage of recovery. Varies widely.
Best for: Importers with strong existing broker relationships and straightforward claims.
Trade law firms
Attorneys specializing in customs and international trade law, particularly firms with practitioners admitted to the CIT bar. Essential for entries requiring CIT litigation and valuable for complex protest strategies.
Fee model: Hourly rates ($300–$600/hr), contingency fees (20–35% of recovery), or hybrid.
Best for: Importers with entries outside the 180-day protest window requiring CIT litigation, or those with complex legal issues.
Capital / acquisition firms
These firms buy your refund claim outright for immediate cash. They’re not advising you on the government process — they’re offering to take the claim off your hands in exchange for a discounted lump sum. The firm then pursues the government refund on their own timeline and keeps the difference.
Fee model: No “fee” — they pay you 70–85% of claim value and keep the rest as their profit margin.
Best for: Importers who need cash now and prefer certainty over maximum recovery. tariffbuyouts.com specializes in this model.
Hybrid firms
Some firms — including Tariff Solutions — operate across multiple categories: advisory services, filing support, and connections to capital providers. They assess your situation and recommend the right combination of paths rather than pushing a single solution.
Fee model: Varies by service. Assessments are typically free; filing support is fee-based; capital offers come from partner buyers.
Best for: Importers who want a single point of contact across multiple recovery strategies.
Get your free Impact Assessment →
What to Look For: The Evaluation Criteria
Regardless of firm type, here are the criteria that separate legitimate, competent firms from the rest.
1. Track record in customs and trade
IEEPA tariff recovery is new, so no firm has a decades-long track record in it specifically. But the underlying skills — customs classification, protest filing, trade litigation, claim valuation — are not new. Look for firms with demonstrated experience in:
- Customs duty recovery (Section 301, Section 232, drawback)
- Protest filing and CBP interaction
- Trade litigation (CIT experience)
- Entry data analysis and validation
A firm that launched last month with no prior trade experience is a bigger risk than one that’s been doing customs work for years and added IEEPA recovery to their service line.
2. NDA before data sharing
This is non-negotiable. Your entry data contains sensitive commercial information: what you import, from where, in what quantities, and at what cost. Any legitimate firm will offer a mutual NDA before asking to see your data.
If a firm asks for your ES-003 report, entry summaries, or duty payment records without first offering an NDA, that’s a disqualifying red flag. Your data is valuable, and it deserves legal protection.
3. Clear fee structure
You should know exactly how you’ll be charged before any work begins. The fee structure should be in writing, and it should be straightforward enough to explain in one paragraph. Watch for:
- Percentage-based fees: What’s the percentage, and is it calculated on the gross refund or net recovery? Is there a minimum?
- Hourly rates: What’s the estimate for total hours? Is there a cap?
- Contingency fees: What counts as a “recovery” for purposes of triggering the fee?
- Hidden costs: Are there administrative fees, filing fees, or technology platform charges on top of the stated fee?
Get the fee agreement in writing before sharing any data. If the firm resists putting fees in writing, move on.
4. Process transparency
A good firm will explain their process clearly — what they’ll do, in what order, on what timeline. You should be able to answer these questions after your first conversation:
- What data do they need from you?
- What analysis will they perform?
- How will they determine your optimal recovery path?
- What’s the timeline for each phase?
- How will they keep you updated on progress?
- Who on their team will handle your account?
Vague answers like “we’ll handle everything” or “trust the process” are not sufficient. You’re entrusting potentially millions of dollars in claims to this firm — you deserve specifics.
5. Capital backing (for acquisition firms)
If you’re considering selling your claim for immediate capital, verify that the firm actually has the capital to buy it. Some firms market themselves as claim buyers but are actually brokers who need to find a buyer after they sign you up. That introduces delay and uncertainty.
Ask directly: “Are you the principal buyer, or are you brokering the transaction?” Both models can work, but you should know which one you’re dealing with.
6. No upfront fees for assessment
Legitimate firms don’t charge you to tell you how much you’re owed. Assessment and analysis should be free — the firm’s incentive is aligned with yours because they only make money if you recover money. If a firm charges upfront fees just to analyze your data, question their confidence in their own service.
That said, understand the business model behind “free.” Advisory firms offer free assessments because they expect you’ll engage them for filing services. Capital firms offer free valuations because they want to buy your claim. Neither is inherently wrong — but understanding the incentive helps you evaluate the advice.
10 Questions to Ask Before Signing
Before you engage any firm, ask these questions. Their answers will tell you everything you need to know.
| # | Question | What a Good Answer Looks Like |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | How long have you been doing customs / trade work? | Specific history with named clients or case types |
| 2 | Will you sign an NDA before I share data? | Immediate yes, with a standard NDA ready to send |
| 3 | What is your exact fee structure? | Written fee schedule, clear calculation basis |
| 4 | How many IEEPA refund claims have you processed? | Honest number — even if small, since the field is new |
| 5 | Who will be my primary point of contact? | A named individual with relevant qualifications |
| 6 | What recovery paths do you support? | All four paths, or clear explanation of their scope |
| 7 | Do you have capital backing for claim purchases? | Verifiable funding source if they’re buying claims |
| 8 | What happens if CBP rejects my filing? | Clear escalation plan (re-filing, protest, CIT) |
| 9 | Can I see a sample assessment or engagement letter? | Willingness to show you what you’re signing up for |
| 10 | Can you provide client references? | Yes, with permission from existing clients |
Red Flags: When to Walk Away
Some warning signs are obvious. Others are subtle. Here’s what to watch for.
Guaranteed specific amounts before seeing your data
No firm can tell you you’re owed exactly $1.5 million without first analyzing your entry data. If someone promises a specific number during an initial call, they’re either guessing or lying. A legitimate firm will say: “We need to analyze your data to determine your exposure. Based on your import volume and country mix, we’d expect it to be in the range of $X to $Y, but the actual number requires entry-level analysis.”
Pressure to sign immediately
Your refund claim isn’t going to disappear if you take a week to evaluate firms. Yes, protest deadlines and CAPE queue positions matter — but those pressures operate on a timeline of weeks to months, not hours. Any firm that pushes for same-day signatures is prioritizing their pipeline over your interests. The cost of waiting is real, but it doesn’t justify a snap decision on who handles your claim.
Upfront payment requirements
For assessment and analysis services, you should pay nothing upfront. For filing services, a reasonable retainer or per-filing fee is normal. For claim acquisition, you should receive money, not pay it. If a firm asks you to pay thousands of dollars before any work is done, question what you’re paying for and whether it’s justified.
No NDA or data protection commitment
Walk away. Full stop. Your import data in the wrong hands can be used by competitors, sold to marketers, or leveraged against you in negotiations. An NDA is the minimum baseline for data protection.
Can’t explain the legal basis
Every firm in this space should be able to clearly explain: the Supreme Court ruled IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional, the CIT ordered refunds, and importers can recover through PSC, protest, CAPE, or claim assignment. If a firm can’t articulate this basic framework — or cites incorrect legal authority — they don’t have the expertise to handle your claim.
Exclusive long-term contracts
Be cautious of contracts that lock you in for extended periods with a single firm. Your refund claim is your asset, and you should retain the flexibility to pursue different recovery paths through different providers if needed. A reasonable engagement should have clear scope, defined deliverables, and a clean termination clause.
Fee Structures: Understanding What You’re Really Paying
The way a firm charges you reveals a lot about their business model and incentive alignment.
Contingency fees (percentage of recovery)
The firm takes a percentage of your refund — typically 10–25% for advisory services or 20–35% for legal services. The advantage is that you pay nothing if they recover nothing. The disadvantage is that the percentage can be substantial on large claims. On a $5 million refund, a 20% contingency fee is $1 million.
Watch for: Whether the percentage is calculated on gross recovery (before costs) or net recovery (after costs). The difference can be significant.
Flat fees / per-filing fees
Some brokers and firms charge a flat fee per filing — for example, $500 per protest or $1,000 per CAPE declaration. This is predictable and often cheaper than contingency fees for large claims. The disadvantage is that you pay regardless of outcome.
Watch for: Whether the flat fee covers re-filing if CBP rejects the initial submission.
Claim purchase discount
Capital firms don’t charge a fee — they pay you less than the full claim value and keep the spread. If they pay you 80% of a $1 million claim, their “fee” is effectively $200,000, but it comes in the form of a discounted purchase rather than a separate charge.
Watch for: Whether the purchase is truly non-recourse. Some deals include clawback provisions that could cost you if the government refund is lower than expected.
Hybrid models
Some firms combine models — for example, a free assessment, a small retainer for filing preparation, and a contingency fee on the recovery. This can work well if the components are clearly defined and fairly priced.
Watch for: Whether the total cost across all components is competitive when added up. Sometimes a “small retainer plus a modest contingency fee” adds up to more than a higher contingency fee alone.
The Hidden Costs of Choosing the Wrong Firm
Picking the wrong recovery firm doesn’t just mean subpar service. It can have tangible financial consequences.
Missed deadlines
A firm that doesn’t understand the 180-day protest window may let entries slip past the deadline. Once the administrative protest option expires, those entries require CIT litigation — adding $15,000–$50,000+ in legal fees per case that would have been unnecessary with timely filing. For a portfolio with 50 entries past the window, that’s a potential six-figure cost.
Data errors that cause rejection
Filing CAPE declarations with incorrect HTS codes, wrong duty amounts, or mixed duty types (including non-IEEPA duties in the claim) results in rejection. Each rejection sends you to the back of the queue. A firm that doesn’t understand the difference between HTS 9903.01 (IEEPA) and other 9903 subheadings (Section 301, Section 232) will make this error — and you’ll pay the price in delays.
Unfavorable claim sale terms
If you’re selling your claim for immediate capital, the terms matter enormously. The difference between a 75% payout and an 85% payout on a $5 million claim is $500,000. A firm with strong capital relationships and competitive market knowledge will negotiate better terms than one that routes all claims to a single buyer. Ask any claim purchaser for competing offers.
Lock-in provisions that limit your options
Some firms include exclusive engagement clauses that prevent you from working with other providers or selling your claim to a third party for 12–24 months. If the firm underperforms or you find a better option, you’re stuck. Read every engagement agreement carefully and negotiate for shorter exclusivity periods (90 days maximum) with clear performance benchmarks.
Inflated expectations followed by disappointment
A firm that overpromises your refund amount or timeline — either to sign you up or to justify higher fees — sets you up for disappointment. When the actual refund comes in lower than projected (because non-IEEPA duties were incorrectly included) or later than promised (because of CAPE queue realities), the firm’s credibility is shot and you’ve lost valuable time.
How Tariff Solutions Approaches It
We believe the right approach for most importers is a combination of paths tailored to their specific entry portfolio and cash needs. Here’s how we work:
-
Free Impact Assessment — We analyze your entry data under NDA and produce a detailed report: total IEEPA exposure, entry-by-entry status, recovery path recommendations, and estimated timelines. No cost, no obligation. Start here.
-
Recovery path guidance — Based on the assessment, we recommend the optimal mix of PSC, protest, CAPE filing, and/or immediate capital. We don’t push a single path because no single path is right for everyone. The four recovery paths framework guides our recommendations.
-
Execution support — We coordinate with your customs broker for PSC and protest filings, prepare your CAPE submission data, and connect you with vetted capital providers for immediate capital if that’s part of your strategy.
-
Transparent fees — Our assessment is always free. Filing support fees are discussed and agreed in writing before any work begins. Capital offers come from our partner network with clearly stated terms.
We meet every criterion listed in this guide, and we welcome the comparison. If you’re evaluating multiple firms — and you should be — use this framework to hold each one accountable.
