Most of the money that Nintendo paid and is entitled to have be returned to them has not gone into the government's coffers.
The money that has passed various deadlines may be more difficult to return, however it is still money that is due to Nintendo. That may be more difficult to obtain, but it isn't the government's money in the first place.
US tax payers aren't paying money to Nintendo - they're paying for the government's lawyers to try to argue against not paying back illegally collected tariffs.
If they win, the US government collected taxes they shouldn't and those would be returned. Saying the "US taxpayer will pay for it" is equivalent to saying the US taxpayer pays for your tax refund. (And also, Nintendo is a "US taxpayer.")
The consumer did pay for it (not "taxpayers", per se) . Tarriffs went up, prices surged, and consumers paid that. Now companies get a refund and probably won't lower prices unless they feel there was extremely adverse effects.
It's completely irrelevant if the consumer won in any of this.
It's about if the United States is a country that respects the rule of law, or some failed 3rd world state, where the law is only respected if the dear leader likes it.
The first one is much better for economic development
Yes but the sleight of hand here is to just simply say "taxpayer."
The taxpayer that paid the tariff was the consumer. The fact Nintendo actually wrote the check is largely accounting, this was passed on to the consumer.
The taxpayer that receives the refund is Nintendo, straight into their profits.
So the taxpayer paying and the taxpayer receiving are totally different. This is basically like regressive welfare where consumer paid a private but government imposed tax to corporations.
Yeah the Switch 2 (launched after Liberation Day) costs $449 in the US and 49,980 yen (~$316) in Japan. I doubt Nintendo will be lowering the price of the console outside Japan anytime soon.
the lower cost in japan is due to the low performance of the yen and that model is locked to japanese only. theres a second model in japan that is closer to the price in the US that supports all languages.
Not really. The scope of the judgement was universal tariffs weren't allowed for that specific invocation of IEEPA 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701
The Trump administration immediately invoked Section 122 for a 10% duty on nonexempt imports and announced expanded Section 232 and 301 investigations.
The taxpayer paid for it when tariffs increased prices, and they'll pay for it again when the government pays back the tariffs.
This scheme amounts to yet another free handout for corporations. They should be required to use this money to reimburse their customers, but that would obviously going to get very complicated.
Essentially yes. Companies paid the tariff costs, largely passed this on to consumers via higher prices, and now companies are due the tariff costs back. Consumers of course won’t get anything back.
> Under customs law, importers generally have about 314 days after goods enter the country before a tariff payment is finalized, a process known as “liquidation.”
> If companies fail to challenge the duty and request a refund after the duty is finalized — or liquidated — they must file a formal protest and, in some cases, challenge the decision in the New York-based trade court to recover the funds.
