Tax Hot Topics
President Donald Trump backed off threats to increase tariffs on products from European countries that did not support his claim to the Danish territory of Greenland. However, he put new tariff increases on the table for Canada, South Korea and countries that do business with Iran.
Greenland
Following meetings with European leaders in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, Trump backed off his threat of a 10% tariff increase (rising to 25%) on products imported into the U.S from the United Kingdom and European Union member states beginning in February. Tensions had rapidly escalated as Trump sought to create leverage for his efforts to annex Greenland, a territory of Denmark, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the EU.
After conferring with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump announced that they had agreed on “the framework of a future deal” and that the tariffs would not be imposed. The U.S., which has operated military bases in Greenland for decades, has now begun discussions with Danish and Greenlandic officials about an increased U.S. presence, a strengthened NATO presence in the Arctic, mining rights, and measures to block Chinese and Russian interests.
The posturing over Greenland, viewed as the most significant threat to NATO since its founding after World War II, has resulted in political and economic fallout between the U.S. and Europe. The European Parliament froze its consideration of a trade deal reached last year between the U.S. and the EU, as additional tariffs would have violated the framework. The agreement has been partially implemented but requires approval by the parliament to by ratified.
Following Trump’s reversal, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said the ratification process would restart. Under the deal made last year, the EU would remove nearly all duties on U.S. products while accepting a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum and a 15% tariff on most other exports to the U.S. The deal already had its detractors among European politicians and officials, and the recent tensions appear to have increased uncertainty about whether they can trust an agreement with the U.S.
One EU official directly involved in the negotiations at Davos told Politico, “I would be skeptical about calling this fantastic news. We cannot live our lives or govern our countries based on social media posts.”
Grant Thornton insight:
Some European Parliament members, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron, advocated that the EU retaliate against the threatened tariffs by raising duties on U.S. products and restricting market access to U.S. firms. In addition to disrupting U.S. business, if such an effort were to be revived, it could threaten the side-by-side agreement for U.S. multinational groups within the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s global minimum tax framework.
Canada
After Canada announced a deal with China to lower tariffs on a quota of Chinese electric vehicle imports in exchange for decreased Chinese duties on Canadian canola oil, Trump threatened additional and higher U.S. tariffs on Canadian products Jan. 24.
“If Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a 100% Tariff against all Canadian goods and products coming into the U.S.A.,” Trump posted on social media.
The U.S. began tariffing a number of Canadian products at 25%, and then 35%, last year, despite Canada’s participation in the version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) updated by the first Trump administration. The current administration says it wants to renegotiate that free trade treaty, now known in the U.S. as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), in the first half of this year.
Whether the Chinese EV agreement, which was set days before Trump’s post, constitutes “a deal” worthy of this response in Trump’s eyes remains unclear. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says the country is not pursuing a full free trade agreement with China.
During a speech in Detroit on Jan. 13, Trump called the USMCA “irrelevant,” the strongest rhetoric yet from the administration that it could withdraw from the largest free trade agreement in the world this year.
“There’s no real advantage to it, it’s irrelevant,” Trump said. “Canada would love it. Canada wants it. They need it.”
In December, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer suggested that the U.S. could withdraw from the trilateral agreement in favor of new bilateral trade agreements with Mexico and Canada. That would upend rules governing approximately $2 trillion of annual trade volume and supply chains built up across borders.
In a Jan. 27 address to Canada’s House of Commons, Carney said there is “almost nothing normal now in the United States,” during remarks on trade and said he told Trump in Davos that Canada would respond to tariffs by continuing to pursue increased trade with other countries and replace U.S. imports with domestic products. But the Canadian PM said that while his country and the U.S. now have a “new relationship,” his government would “be prepared to respond positively” to building upon the current dynamics through the USMCA.
On Jan. 29 Trump also posted that he would begin tariffing Canadian aircraft at 50% and order the safety decertification in the U.S. of certain business jets built in Canada, if Canada does not move forward on safety certification of U.S.-made Gulfstream jets.
South Korea
Trump surprised observers by threatening to blow up a trade framework announced last fall by his administration and the government of South Korea, accusing the Asian country of taking too long to implement the investment part of the deal. The agreement made last October called for 15% tariffs on South Korean imports into the U.S., despite a free trade agreement that went into effect between the two countries in 2012 and eliminated most duties and other trade barriers, and $350 billion in South Korean investment in the U.S., including $200 billion for semiconductors, batteries and nuclear energy.
In a social media post Jan. 27, Trump said he would increase tariffs on South Korean products to 25%, after initially pledging to do so in 2025 before announcing the trade framework with South Korea.
“South Korea’s Legislature is not living up to its Deal with the United States,” Trump wrote.
Grant Thornton insight:
It’s not clear to what extent that threat was (or is) legal; the centerpiece of the bilateral free trade agreement, which required treaty ratification and other legal changes by Congress, was eliminating virtually all duties and non-tariff trade barriers between the two countries. It is the second-largest free trade agreement for the U.S. after the USMCA. The Trump administration is using emergency domestic laws to override the treaty obligations.
States and businesses have sued the Trump administration over its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on imports from every country in the world, including South Korea. The Supreme Court will issue its decision in that case during its current term, which will end in June. The next “decision day” currently scheduled for the court is Feb. 20, though justices can schedule additional announcements of decisions at their discretion.
South Korea’s leader, Lee Jae-Myung, said he did not have any warning of Trump’s new threat. Under the deal with the U.S., the country agreed to invest up to $20 billion a year, while setting aside another $150 billion for investment in U.S. shipbuilding operations. Finance minister Koo Yun-Cheol recently told Bloomberg News that the first tranche of investment would likely not be made in the first half of this year, because of the time needed to assess and select projects.
A day after he posted the new tariff threat on social media, Trump told White House reporters on Jan. 28, “We’ll work something out with South Korea.”
Iran
The president has not yet followed through on a Jan. 12 social media post promising 25% “secondary” tariffs on imports from countries that do business with Iran.
The White House has not issued an executive order or proclamation amending current economic sanctions on Iran to include new duties on countries such as China, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iraq, India, Pakistan and multiple EU members.
The U.S. already has a comprehensive Iran economic sanctions regime, in place since 1979. Economic sanctions typically freeze assets and prohibit trade, although the Treasury Department can provide licenses for exemptions. The sanctions include secondary measures against entities from other countries that do business with sanctioned Iranian entities, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Those sanctions are generally applied at the individual and entity level, rather than nationwide, making them more targeted economic measures than tariffs. Additional tariffs on imports from third-party countries would be less targeted than existing sanctions and could prompt retaliatory actions by those countries.
Contacts:
Content disclaimer
This content provides information and comments on current issues and developments from Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter covered. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. All relevant facts and circumstances, including the pertinent authoritative literature, need to be considered to arrive at conclusions that comply with matters addressed in this content.
For additional information on topics covered in this content, contact a Grant Thornton professional.
Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. Grant Thornton LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business consulting services to their clients. Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton Advisors LLC’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information.
Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton Advisors LLC assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
Trending topics
Share with your network
Share