Finance leaders are divided on how they’d use potential tariff refunds—with just 18% saying they’d fully roll back price increases

Good morning. For corporate America, tariffs have shifted from policy experiment to structural reality. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) may open the door to refunds, but it also resets the rules yet again.

Companies like FedEx sued for a full refund following the court’s decision, and Costco sued before the ruling. But beyond those headline cases, what are companies thinking about potential refunds?

KPMG shared with CFO Daily the early findings from its upcoming tariffs study, based on a survey of 300 U.S.-based C-suite and business leaders at organizations across sectors with annual revenues above $1 billion. Executives are divided on how to handle possible refunds and are reluctant to roll back prices even if costs ease.

For importers, the core issue is what to do if refunds materialize, Lou Abad, a principal in KPMG’s Washington National Tax, Trade and Customs Services group, told me. The importer of record pays duties and would receive any refund, raising questions about whether and how to share that value with customers or suppliers.

“It’s pretty murky how the importers will get the refunds,” Abad said. He continued, “So it’s really important for companies to take the necessary steps to preserve their right to refunds.” He stressed using administrative tools, such as protests and post-summary corrections, to keep claims alive. Those steps, he explains, may be required to secure “a day in court” if companies ultimately litigate in the Court of International Trade and other courts, especially given the volume of entries and the government’s potential reluctance to pay.

That complexity helps explain why about half of the respondents plan to work with third parties, such as law firms, to facilitate reimbursements and coordinate protests and potential litigation.

If refunds arrive, companies say they would most likely reinvest in supply chain diversification, resilience, working capital, or inventory. Some may share funds with trading partners where tariff-sharing agreements exist, Abad said. But many contracts never contemplated refunds. In those cases, whether to pass money downstream or treat it as a windfall will likely be decided case by case, particularly as the administration signals new tariffs under other legal authorities, he said.

Another key survey finding is how few companies plan to reverse earlier price hikes. Thirty-four percent would implement a partial rollback, 30% would use temporary promotional pricing, and just 18% would fully remove prior surcharges. Abad attributes this to the familiar “stickiness” of prices: once a company raises prices to accommodate inflation or a cost shock like tariffs, it can be difficult to roll them back, and those higher levels often become the new floor.

That stickiness is reinforced by policy signals. With the administration considering additional tariff actions, companies see little reason to reset prices downward only to face another round of cost increases, he said.

For CFOs and senior leaders, tariffs are less a discrete risk event than a structural feature of the landscape. As Abad sees it, what’s changed is not their presence but the volatility around rates, exemptions, and overlapping measures. This creates what Abad describes as a “revolving goal” for companies: tracking shifting rates, managing stacked tariffs under different authorities, and determining which rules apply to each shipment.

“I think most companies are just waiting for guidance from the Court of International Trade and other authorities to see how this refund process will play out,” Abad said.

Sheryl Estrada
sheryl.estrada@fortune.com

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com