Small businesses are skeptical of tax returns after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s trade tariffs

Small businesses across America have expressed doubt that they will ever see their money back following the US Supreme Court’s historic decision to strike down a large part of Donald Trump’s government.

The court ruling could unlock up to $175 billion (£137 billion) in compensation for companies that pay import duties under the controversial policy. However, many entrepreneurs say the legal and administrative complexity involved in claiming those refunds can make the process too difficult, especially for small firms already struggling with rising costs.

The tariffs, which targeted dozens of imports under the former president’s “Independence Day” trade policy, have sharply increased the cost of goods and products for businesses that rely on global supply chains.

Although the decision has opened the door to compensation claims, Trump himself has admitted that the issue could be involved in litigation “for the next five years”, leaving thousands of companies unsure whether the refunds are worth it.

For many small companies, the economic damage caused by the tariffs is already being felt in higher costs, squeezed margins and delayed investment plans.

Elizabeth Vitanza, who runs a lighting and home furnishings business in Los Angeles with her husband John Ballon, said the impact was felt in almost every product they worked with.

“All the modern brands we carry have increased their prices by at least 12 percent over the last year,” he said. “None of this is pro-business or pro-American.”

When Trump won re-election in 2024, the couple tried to protect their business by rushing a large order with a Swedish partner in an attempt to reduce import prices.

Despite the effort, shipping was still held up by new jobs.

“We ended up paying a five-figure fee,” said Ballon. “The money we had set aside to repair the showroom and increase the wages of the workers suddenly had to pay taxes from other countries that were not expected.”

The couple said the experience forced them to rethink expansion plans.

“Why does anyone start a business now?” Vitanza asked. If I didn’t have it, I wouldn’t have it.

In all other sectors, similar stories of rising costs linked to tariffs on imported raw materials and parts have emerged.

A furniture manufacturer in Texas said the policy has increased the price of imported lumber and specialty cabinet hardware that cannot be found domestically.

The company had no choice but to pass the cost on to customers.

“Those things are not made in the United States,” said the owner, who asked not to be identified. “If prices increase those costs, we can raise prices or incur losses.”

Outdoor equipment company Granite Gear, based in Minnesota, experienced a similar shock.

Manager Rob Coughlin said the company had faced constant uncertainty since the tariffs were introduced.

Before the policy was implemented, Granite Gear paid an 18 percent import tax on certain goods. When the new tariffs were introduced, the rate rose to 46 percent before being reduced to 20 percent following trade talks with Vietnam.

Rapid changes made pricing decisions almost impossible.

“We didn’t even know what our costs would be when the products started shipping,” said Coughlin. “How do you go to a store with a price list when you don’t know the prices you’re going to pay?”

Eventually, the company raised prices between 10 and 20 percent to offset the additional costs.

Unlike big brands, Coughlin said smaller companies have less bargaining power when dealing with vendors.

“Big companies can reverse price increases. Small brands like us don’t have the power.”

For companies in niche sectors, prices have also created serious financial difficulties.

Dr. Charlie Elrod, the founder of a natural animal health products company, said that the prices of products from Brazil alone increased the cost by about one million dollars last year.

For months, the company tried to find additional costs rather than pass them on to customers.

However, in the end it was forced to raise prices by 5 percent.

“That helped a little bit,” Elrod said, “but the profits really went down.”

After the Supreme Court’s decision, more than a thousand companies have filed lawsuits demanding the return of fees they claim were illegally collected.

In a related development, a US trade court judge recently ordered the federal government to begin refunding billions of dollars to importers affected by illegal tariffs.

However, the effective way to return that money is still unclear.

Many businesses say the complexity of filing claims, and the legal costs involved, can outweigh any potential settlement.

Vitanza said his company carefully tracks the payment of taxes in case it decides to apply for compensation.

“We keep a spreadsheet so that one day we have everything ready when we want a refund,” he said. “But let’s not count on it.”

Howard Trenholme, who owns a bakery and cafe in Moab, Utah, said the complexity of the law makes getting a refund nearly impossible.

“As an end user buying through multiple suppliers, the process will be more complex,” he said. “Legal costs alone would eliminate any return.”

Coughlin from Granite Gear reached a similar conclusion.

“When I compare the potential return to the legal costs involved, it’s just not worth the risk,” he said.

“I won’t try to look for anything, maybe it would be a waste of time and money.”

Even with the court’s decision, the legacy of tax policy continues to influence business planning across the country.

Companies that once relied on stable global supply chains now face a highly uncertain trading environment, with volatile operations and geopolitical tensions making long-term decisions difficult.

For many small businesses, experience has reinforced how vulnerable they are to rapid changes in government trade policy.

Although the Supreme Court decision opens the door to billions in refunds, business owners say the reality is that many of them may never see that money.

For companies already stretched by rising costs and economic uncertainty, the priority now is to stay strong — rather than fight a legal battle that could take years to recoup past losses.