You know your company is owed money from IEEPA tariffs. Your customs broker has confirmed it. Maybe you’ve even estimated the amount. But before anything moves forward, you need approval — from your CFO, your board, your executive committee, or whoever controls the budget and resources to pursue recovery.
This article gives you the framework to build that business case. It’s structured as a template you can adapt to your company’s specific situation, with the key data points, comparisons, and risk assessments that decision-makers need to see. Whether you’re presenting to a Fortune 500 board or a mid-market ownership group, the logic is the same.
Section 1: Executive Summary
Start with the headline. Decision-makers want the bottom line first, then they’ll dig into the details.
Template language:
Following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on February 20, 2026, striking down all IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional, [Company Name] is entitled to recover approximately $[amount] in tariff overpayments made between February 2025 and February 2026. This amount represents duties paid under an authority the Court found Congress never granted. Recovery is available through multiple paths, with expected net recovery ranging from 85% to 100% of the principal amount plus statutory interest.
This memo recommends [specific recommendation: filing through CAPE / pursuing immediate capital / hybrid approach] and requests approval of [specific resources needed]. The expected ROI exceeds [X]% with minimal downside risk.
Fill in your numbers. If you don’t know the exact amount yet, an Impact Assessment provides the data you need for this section.
Section 2: Situation — What Happened and Why It Matters
This section educates decision-makers who may not be following trade law developments. Keep it concise and factual.
The Legal Background
Between February 2025 and February 2026, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on imports using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the President does not have authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. The ruling was immediate and applies to all IEEPA tariffs — no exceptions, no phase-out, no grandfathering.
The Court of International Trade subsequently ordered CBP to process refunds for all affected entries. The administrative refund process is now underway through CBP’s CAPE system.
Our Exposure
| Metric | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total IEEPA duties paid | $[amount] |
| Number of affected entries | [count] |
| Time period | February 2025 - February 2026 |
| Estimated statutory interest (3% annual) | $[amount] |
| Total estimated recovery | $[amount] |
This data comes from your ES-003 entry summary reports in CBP’s ACE portal. Your customs broker can pull these reports, or you can request an Impact Assessment that consolidates all entry data into a single analysis.
Section 3: Recovery Path Comparison
Decision-makers need to understand the options. The four recovery paths each have different timelines, costs, and risk profiles:
Path Comparison Table
| Factor | PSC (Unliquidated) | Protest (Liquidated) | CIT Litigation | Immediate Capital |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timeline | Days to weeks | 18-36 months via CAPE | 12-24 months | 14-21 business days |
| Recovery amount | 100% + interest | 100% + interest | 100% + interest (minus legal fees) | 85-92% (typical) |
| Out-of-pocket cost | Broker fees only | Broker fees only | Legal counsel required | None |
| Risk | Minimal | Processing delays | Litigation risk | None (non-recourse) |
| Resource requirement | Low | Moderate | High | Low |
For most companies, the recommendation involves a combination of paths based on the status of individual entries. Entries that are still unliquidated should go through Post-Summary Correction (fastest and cheapest). Entries that are liquidated but within the 180-day protest window should be protested. Entries outside the window require either CIT litigation or alternative approaches.
Get your free Impact Assessment →
Section 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis
This is the section that closes the deal. Decision-makers want to see the numbers.
Direct Costs of Recovery
| Cost Category | Government Path | Immediate Capital Path |
|---|---|---|
| Customs broker fees | $[estimate] | Included |
| Legal counsel (if needed) | $[estimate] | None |
| Internal staff time | [hours] x [rate] | Minimal |
| Impact Assessment | $0 (no cost) | $0 (no cost) |
| Total estimated cost | $[total] | $0 |
The immediate capital path has zero out-of-pocket cost because the discount is taken from the recovery amount, not billed separately. This is a meaningful distinction for companies with constrained budgets.
Net Recovery Comparison
For a $5 million claim as an example:
| Scenario | Gross Recovery | Costs | Time Value Loss | Net Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government (24 months) | $5,300,000 | ($15,000) | ($700,000)* | $4,585,000 |
| Immediate capital | $4,250,000 | $0 | $0 | $4,250,000 |
| Hybrid (50/50) | $4,775,000 | ($7,500) | ($350,000)* | $4,417,500 |
Time value loss assumes 10% WACC. Actual WACC varies by company. See the time-value analysis for detailed calculations.
The gap between government and immediate capital narrows dramatically when you account for time value. For companies with high capital costs, the immediate capital path may actually deliver better financial outcomes.
ROI Calculation
For the government path with $15,000 in estimated costs:
- Investment: $15,000 in broker/legal fees + internal staff time
- Return: $5,285,000 (net of costs)
- ROI: 35,233%
Even with the most generous cost estimates, the ROI on pursuing IEEPA recovery is extraordinary. The legal question is settled. The administrative process is defined. The risk is procedural, not legal.
Section 5: Risk Assessment
Every business case needs a risk section. Here’s an honest assessment:
Risks of Pursuing Recovery
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBP processing delays | High | Moderate — extends timeline | File early for best queue position |
| Data errors in entry summaries | Low | Low — correctable | Validate data before filing |
| Partial adjustments by CBP | Low | Low — entry-level | Review entries for accuracy |
| Legislative action to delay refunds | Very low | Moderate | Supreme Court ruling is constitutional; Congress cannot override |
| Downstream customer claims | Varies | Moderate | Review contracts for pass-through obligations |
Risks of Not Pursuing Recovery
This is equally important — and often overlooked in business cases:
| Risk | Probability | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Protest deadlines expire | High (for early entries) | Permanent loss of administrative remedy on affected entries |
| CAPE queue position deteriorates | Certain | 6-18 months additional delay vs. early filers |
| Capital remains locked | Certain | Ongoing opportunity cost at company WACC |
| Competitors recover first | High | Competitive disadvantage if rivals deploy recovered capital |
The cost of waiting analysis quantifies these risks in dollar terms. For most companies, the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by orders of magnitude.
Section 6: Resource Requirements
Be specific about what you’re asking for. Decision-makers want to know the commitment.
Internal Resources
- Trade compliance / supply chain: 20-40 hours to compile entry data, coordinate with customs broker, review and validate entries
- Finance / accounting: 10-20 hours for financial statement treatment, tax planning (see Q2 financial statements guidance)
- Legal: 5-10 hours for contract review (downstream obligations, claim assignment terms if applicable)
- Executive sponsor: 2-5 hours for decision-making and oversight
External Resources
- Customs broker: Existing relationship; incremental fees for data pull and filing
- Impact Assessment: No cost — request here
- Trade counsel: Only needed for CIT litigation path or complex entries
Total Time to Decision
From requesting an Impact Assessment to having a complete, data-driven recommendation: 2-3 weeks. From decision to filing: 1-2 additional weeks for government path, or 7-10 business days for immediate capital closing.
Section 7: Timeline
| Milestone | Target Date | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Request Impact Assessment | Week 1 | Trade compliance |
| Receive assessment results | Week 2-3 | External (Tariff Solutions) |
| Internal review and path selection | Week 3-4 | Finance + executive sponsor |
| Board/leadership approval | Week 4 | Executive sponsor |
| File claims (government path) | Week 5-6 | Customs broker |
| Receive immediate capital (if applicable) | Week 6-8 | Finance |
| Monitor CAPE processing | Ongoing | Trade compliance |
The critical path item is the Impact Assessment, which provides the data foundation for every subsequent decision. Until you know your exact exposure, entry statuses, and deadline mapping, everything else is speculation.
Section 8: Recommendation
Close with a clear, specific recommendation. Example:
Based on [Company Name]‘s IEEPA exposure of $[amount] across [count] entries, we recommend pursuing a hybrid recovery strategy: filing [count] unliquidated entries through Post-Summary Correction for full government recovery, filing [count] liquidated entries as CAPE protests, and evaluating [count] high-value entries for immediate capital to accelerate cash recovery.
Total estimated net recovery: $[amount]. Required internal investment: [hours] of staff time plus [costs]. Recommended first step: authorize the Impact Assessment (no cost) to validate exposure and refine the recovery strategy.
Time sensitivity: The earliest 180-day protest windows may begin closing in June 2026. Entries that pass this deadline require CIT litigation at significantly higher cost. We recommend executive approval by [date] to ensure all entries are covered.
Handling Common Objections
Every business case faces pushback. Here are the objections you’re most likely to hear and how to address them.
”Let’s wait and see how the process works before we invest time.”
This is the most dangerous objection because it sounds reasonable. The problem: waiting has a quantifiable cost. Protest deadlines are running. CAPE queue position deteriorates with every week of delay. And the time-value erosion on your locked capital is ongoing.
Counter with the numbers. At a 10% WACC on a $5 million claim, every month of delay costs approximately $33,000 in foregone returns — net of the statutory interest CBP will pay. Over six months of “waiting to see,” that’s $200,000. The Impact Assessment that would have started the process costs $0.
”We don’t have the internal bandwidth right now.”
This is a resource allocation question, and the answer is straightforward: the internal time required is modest (30-60 hours total across trade compliance and finance), the external resources are available at no upfront cost, and the ROI per hour invested is extraordinary.
For a $2 million claim requiring 40 internal hours: that’s $50,000 per hour of staff time invested, measured by the refund recovered. No other project on your plate comes close to that return.
”What if the government changes the rules?”
The Supreme Court’s ruling is constitutional. Congress can’t override it with legislation. The executive branch can’t reverse it with an executive order. The only “rule change” risk is procedural — how CBP processes refunds, not whether it must. And even procedural delays don’t eliminate the obligation. They just change the timeline.
”Our claim is too small to bother with.”
Define “too small.” A $100,000 refund with minimal effort to pursue is still $100,000. The Impact Assessment is free. Filing through your existing customs broker relationship is low-cost. And for claims that genuinely seem too small for the government path, immediate capital converts even modest claims into cash quickly.
”We already passed the cost to our customers.”
Passing costs to customers doesn’t eliminate your refund right. Under U.S. customs law, the importer of record — not the end customer — is entitled to the refund. Whether you have contractual obligations to share the refund with customers is a separate question that depends on your specific agreements. For most importers who raised prices generally (rather than adding explicit tariff surcharges), the customer pass-through argument is weak.
Competitive Intelligence: What Your Peers Are Doing
Decision-makers want to know whether competitors are already moving. While specific company data isn’t public, the signals are clear:
- 330,000+ importers are affected. Major companies across every industry that imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and other IEEPA-affected countries are evaluating recovery.
- The CAPE system is designed for sequential processing — first filed, first paid. Companies that move faster gain a real timing advantage.
- Industry associations in retail, manufacturing, automotive, and consumer goods have issued guidance encouraging members to pursue recovery.
- Customs brokerage firms report a surge in data requests and filing preparation activity.
If your competitors are filing now and you’re still building the business case, you’re falling behind in the queue. That queue position translates directly to when you receive your money — and the cost of every month of additional delay is measurable.
Adapting This Framework
This template works for any company size. For smaller companies presenting to ownership:
- Focus on the net recovery number and the ROI
- Emphasize that the Impact Assessment is free
- Highlight the zero out-of-pocket cost of the immediate capital path
For larger companies presenting to the board:
- Include the financial statement impact (see the GAAP treatment guide)
- Address tax implications (tax guide)
- Discuss competitive positioning — are your industry peers already recovering?
- Present the complete guide to IEEPA refunds as background reading
For private equity portfolio companies:
- Frame the refund as a one-time EBITDA add-back opportunity
- Highlight the immediate capital option as a way to accelerate distributions
- Note that the claim is an asset that increases enterprise value whether recovered or assigned
Appendix: Data Sources for Your Business Case
Your business case is only as credible as its data. Here’s where to get the numbers:
Exposure Data
Your total IEEPA duty exposure comes from CBP’s ACE portal. The ES-003 Entry Summary Details report shows every entry filed during the IEEPA period, including the HTS codes and duty amounts. Your customs broker has access to this data and can pull it for you.
If you use multiple customs brokers, you’ll need reports from each one. The Impact Assessment consolidates data from all sources into a single analysis, which is often the fastest path to a complete picture.
Financial Modeling Inputs
For the cost-benefit analysis, you need your company’s WACC (available from your finance team or easily calculated from your capital structure), your seasonal borrowing rates, and any debt covenant ratios that the refund receivable would affect.
Legal Citations
Decision-makers may want to verify the legal foundation. Key citations for your business case appendix:
- Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 602 U.S. ___ (2026) — the Supreme Court ruling
- Atmus Filtration Technologies v. United States, CIT No. 26-00031 (Mar. 4, 2026) — the CIT implementation order
- 19 U.S.C. Section 1514 — the protest statute
- 19 U.S.C. Section 1505(c) — statutory interest on refunds
The Bottom Line
The business case for IEEPA tariff recovery is one of the strongest you’ll ever present. The legal basis is a Supreme Court ruling. The recovery amounts are verified from government records. The risk is negligible. The ROI is measured in thousands of percent.
The only thing standing between your company and recovery is a decision to start. The first step costs nothing.
