Tax Hot Topics
Just as one tariff regime ended last week, another took its place. The Trump administration imposed new tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5% ad valorem rates, on imports from 60 jurisdictions, including the 27 member countries of the European Union.
Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the tariffs took effect at 12:01 a.m. on July 24 for all non-exempt goods entering the U.S. or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, replacing a 10% global duty that expired at the same time.
The new tariffs ostensibly target the failure of U.S. trading partners to pass or enforce laws banning the importation of goods made by forced labor into their own countries, though administration officials have largely characterized them as replacing the previous country-specific tariffs invalidated by a February Supreme Court ruling.
“The specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told the Senate Finance Committee July 22, recommitting to the Trump administration’s high tariff policies in prepared remarks. “We are committed to continuing to use tariffs and to negotiate deals to support the reindustrialization of our economy, protect American workers and increase their wages and shrink our trade deficit.”
The top U.S. trade negotiator described tariffs as the enforcement mechanism for the non-binding trade agreements that the Trump administration announced with various countries in 2025 and earlier this year.
Section 301 is a more established legal framework than the administration’s interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) last year to impose a 10% worldwide tariff and various country-specific duties. The Supreme Court’s ruling against the use of IEEPA for tariffs has led to the refund of tens of billions of dollars importers paid to Customs and Border Protection.
However, could still be subject to legal challenge. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled, narrowly, against the Trump administration’s use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary 10% global tariffs immediately after the IEEPA decision. The administration appealed that ruling, and further proceedings are scheduled for August. If the administration ultimately loses in court, that could create another refund opportunity for businesses that paid the tariffs.
As with last year’s version of country-specific tariffs, the new 301 tariffs do not cover materials and products already subject to Section 232 tariffs. Raw materials that are not easily replaced with domestic supply or products that could cause “economy-wide disruptions” if subjected to tariffs, and products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities or reasonable prices in the U.S. are also among the products exempted, with a full list provided in this annex (PDF - 284.76KB).
Tariffs earn bipartisan scrutiny, but legislative action remains unlikely
Senators from both parties raised concerns over the administration’s tariffs, which are the highest import taxes imposed on U.S. taxpayers in decades, during Greer’s testimony before the Finance Committee.
“The whipsaw effect has made it difficult for some of our businesses to maintain their growth plans or to make big capital investments," said Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who added that companies in her home state are, “nervous about the uncertainty of the tariffs landscape.”
Whether that materializes into legislative momentum to undo those import duties remains to be seen. Congressional Republicans, with a few exceptions, have largely avoided efforts to undo the Trump administration’s trade policies, despite vocal criticism.
Legislation aimed at increasing economic pressure on Russia to end its re-invasion of Ukraine, currently being considered in the Senate, would actually increase presidential tariff authority, allowing the administration to impose duty rates of up to 100% on goods from countries that are among the largest purchasers of Russian oil, including China and India.
The bill has bipartisan support, though the top Democrats on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees — Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass. — put out a statement of opposition to further executive branch tariff authority.
“There is no question that the U.S. government must take stronger action against purchasers of Russian energy who are fueling the unjustifiable war against Ukraine,” the two said in their July 14 joint statement. “But the latest draft of the Sanctioning Russia Act is a prescription for bedlam and higher tariffs.”
Separately, on July 22, Wyden introduced a new bill, the Congressional Trade Powers Reform Act, which would repeal most tariff authorities of the presidency and require congressional approval of new duties. This would happen through the creation of a committee with membership from both the Senate and House of Representatives with jurisdiction over presidential tariff proposals.
Legislation to curb presidential tariff powers is extremely unlikely to become law during this Congress and would face an uphill climb even if Democrats take the majorities in both the Senate and House in this fall’s midterm elections, as it would require a two-thirds majority of support in both chambers to overcome a likely presidential veto.
Still, as tariffs remain widely unpopular, this could be an area of policymaking worth monitoring during the next Congress.
Tariffs on Brazilian products in place, more 301 tariffs likely
In addition to the broad 10% to 12.5% Section 301 tariffs announced on July 23, the Trump administration also imposed Section 301 tariffs specific to Brazilian imports, at a 25% ad valorem rate, on July 22. The tariffs stem from a broad investigation ordered by President Donald Trump last year.
The official Federal Register notice of the Brazilian tariffs can be found here (PDF - 1.14MB).
The U.S. Trade Representative also has an open investigation into industrial overcapacity of other countries that appears likely to lead to additional Section 301 tariffs on the following countries or jurisdictions: Mexico, China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Japan and India.
It is not yet clear when that investigation will conclude, though it will likely result in additional tariffs on imports from some or all of those entities.
On July 24 President Donald Trump also said in a social media post that the U.S. would initiate a Section 301 investigation, and more tariffs, on imports from the European Union over the bloc’s recent fines of several large U.S. tech companies.
“The penalties will be entirely reversed and, we anticipate, a substantial TARIFF to be placed on them at the earliest possible moment,” Trump wrote in the post.
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