In this episode of Five Questions, Five Answers, Birgit Matthiesen, David Hamill, James Kim, and Antonio J. Rivera break down the June 3, executive order, Strengthening Customs Enforcement — not a tariff, but potentially one of the year’s most consequential trade actions for US importers. 

They cover the order’s expanded disclosure demands, its 90-day overhaul of the US Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) penalty-mitigation framework, and CBP’s hard-edged enforcement posture — and explain why a proactive review of import processes can turn the disruption into a competitive edge in 2026.

Takeaways

- It is not a tariff — but Strengthening Customs Enforcement may be the year’s most consequential trade action for US importers.

- Executive orders carry the full force of law, and CBP “stands ready to enforce,” now treating importing as “a privilege, not a right.”

- Expect to disclose far more — foreign tax and business identifiers, affiliated partners, and supply-chain and product detail (composition, grade, size).

- CBP’s mitigation framework gets a 90-day overhaul: a penalty floor of at least 50% for national-security violations, and no mitigation for repeat offenders.

- Brokers face more audits and maximum penalties for weak due diligence or non-cooperation.

- Reassess voluntary disclosures now — and review procurement, classification, and valuation to build resilience.

In the latest episode of Five Questions, Five Answers, host Birgit Matthiesen is joined by ArentFox Schiff colleagues Jackson David Toof and Mario A. Torrico for a conversation on the False Claims Act (FCA), its origins, and its continued importance as a tool to combat fraud against the federal government.

The discussion examines how US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) are increasingly using the FCA to pursue customs fraud and trade violations, the significant business and reputational risks companies face, and the compliance missteps that commonly lead to enforcement actions. It also highlights the importance of proactive compliance strategies for managing FCA exposure.

Takeaways

- The FCA is a long-standing and powerful enforcement tool.

- FCA enforcement by CBP and the DOJ is increasing sharply.

- FCA violations pose serious financial and reputational risks for importers.

- Compliance exposure most often arises from classification, valuation, and country‑of‑origin errors.

- Proactive compliance programs offer both risk reduction and competitive advantage.

Following recent episodes that examined specific US tariff announcements, today’s discussion takes a wider view.

Host Birgit Matthiesen is joined by AFS Customs and Tariff Practice Leader Antonio J. Rivera to explore how tariff policy and enforcement are increasingly a fiscal and strategic risk across industries, elevating them into a core enterprise risk issue.

What the Episode Covers

- Defining enterprise risk in the tariff context, including fiscal exposure, legal risk, and competitive positioning.

- Developing mitigation strategies and a coordinated, company-wide approach spanning procurement, operations, and marketing.

- Planning for both the near term, such as current tariff mitigation options, and the long term, including supply chain and production strategy.

In the latest episode of “Tax Stuff You Should Know,” hosts Bob Pluth and Gene Magidenko unpack the complexities of federal self-employment tax through the lens of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sirius Solutions.

The discussion centers on how self-employment taxes apply to limited partners, how limited partners are defined for this purpose, and where the Fifth Circuit’s approach in Sirius Solutions diverges from the US Tax Court’s functional analysis. They also explore the historical evolution of the limited partner concept, the lack of clear Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance, and what these ongoing interpretive tensions could mean for taxpayers going forward.

Key Takeaways

- Self-employment taxes can materially increase an individual’s overall tax liability from investments into pass-through entities.

- Active management roles can jeopardize limited partner status.

- The lack of IRS guidance has resulted in considerable uncertainty and court challenges in this area.

- While most recent cases are not favorable for taxpayers seeking to limit their self-employment tax exposure, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sirius Solutions and pending cases in other federal appellate courts may change the landscape.

- Congressional action would provide much-needed clarity in this area of tax law, but the likelihood of such action is uncertain.

Kevin Matz – NYSSCPA Interview by ArentFox Schiff LLP

In the latest episode of Beyond the Lot, Kevin Timson speaks with Zach Kuzemka, CEO of NBB, about the current state of the dealership buy-sell market, with a focus on the need to “grow or go”, bring in outside capital, optimize rooftop mix and implement long-term succession plans and estate plans. Drawing on insights from the recent NADA convention in Las Vegas, the discussion explores the challenges and opportunities dealers face as they plan for growth in 2026 and beyond.

In the latest episode of “Tax Stuff You Should Know,” hosts Bob Pluth and Gene Magidenko unpack the CFM Insurance decision, spotlighting the complexities of captive insurance arrangements and the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) scrutiny of them.

They underscore the importance of tax planning needing to correspond with economic and substantive reality, the audit risks, including those tied to refund claims, and the implications of the IRS’ Dirty Dozen list. The discussion also stresses the importance of meticulous documentation and legal compliance, and notes that reliance on qualified professional advice can help mitigate penalties.

Takeaways

- Captive insurance companies must operate as bona fide insurance providers.

- The IRS continues to flag certain planning strategies as high risk.

- Taxpayers must maintain thorough documentation and comply with legal requirements.

- Courts focus on the substance of a transaction or structure rather than its form.

- Good-faith reliance on competent tax advice may mitigate penalties.

- Arrangements that promise outsized tax benefits warrant skepticism.

On January 20, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the World Economic Forum. Coming a week after his meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping, his remarks made headlines globally.

 

In this episode of Five Questions, Five Answers, we asked Automotive News Toronto Bureau Chief David Kennedy for his perspective on where the prime minister is taking Canada’s trade policy and what the bilateral accord could mean for North America.

Takeaways 

- Annual imports of up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles under the Canada-China accord. 

- A 50% increase in Canadian exports to China by 2030. 

- The increasing importance of compliance with evolving import regulations. 

​- The establishment of cross-functional market-access committees within companies.

In the latest episode of “Tax Stuff You Should Know,” hosts Bob Pluth and Gene Magidenko unpack the income tax consequences of partnership liquidations and related traps for the unwary.

They demystify the treatment of hot assets, the mixing-bowl rules, and special rules that apply to the distribution of cash and marketable securities — common traps that can convert what looks like a simple wind‑down into a surprising tax bill for one or more of the partners.

Key Takeaways

- Partnership liquidations frequently arise in family‑owned and closely held contexts.

- Liquidating distributions generally are tax-free to the partnership and to partners, except if there are “hot assets” or if a partner receives cash and marketable securities exceeding basis.

- Mixing‑bowl rules can adversely impact distributions of property that had originally been contributed to the partnership within the preceding seven years.

- Disproportionate distributions can create unexpected tax liabilities.

- Understanding the contribution and operational history of a partnership is essential for accurate analysis.

In this episode of Five Questions, Five Answers, Birgit Matthiesen and Jessica DiPietro explore the historical context and implications of the Nixon Shock and the Trade Expansion Act, focusing on Section 232 investigations and their impact on US trade policy.

Birgit and Jessica discuss the complexities of these investigations, the broad scope of tariffs, and the importance of understanding product classifications and valuations. They also look ahead to the future of Section 232 actions and the need for companies to stay informed and prepared for potential trade remedy actions in 2026.

Takeaways

• Know that Section 232 investigations can be initiated by multiple actors, including the president and Congress.

• Anticipate wide investigative scopes that can sweep in diverse products and complicate compliance.

• Monitor Federal Register notices to stay current on tariff actions and scope changes.

• Note that the current Administration frames economic security as national security.

• Track the rising number of Section 232 investigations as a signal of policy direction.

• Prepare proactively by assessing and managing your company’s tariff exposure.