Four new companies: Lululemon ($134.5M), PVH ($106.7M), Ross Stores ($253M), Victoria's Secret ($135M) — all filed within the last few days (Sept 1–4).

Companies with a quantified IEEPA tariff refund figure identified by Calcbench as of September 4, 2026, listed alphabetically. Total: approximately $19.3 billion. See the main analysis for methodology, sourcing, and the largest recoveries by dollar amount.

Total across 105 companies: approximately $19.3 billion.

Following Friday's post about Tariff refunds and all the gory details, we thought we would publish the full list of firms that we have found with tariff refunds to date.  

We may have missed some firms, but this is a solid list.  And we will continue to add to it.  Enjoy!

Full List: 101 Companies Disclosing IEEPA Tariff Refunds (Alphabetical)

Companies with a quantified IEEPA tariff refund figure identified by Calcbench as of August 28, 2026, listed alphabetically. Total: approximately $18.7 billion. See the main analysis for methodology, sourcing, and the ten largest recoveries by dollar amount.

Total across 101 companies: approximately $18.7 billion.

Figures reflect filings and disclosures identified as of August 28, 2026.

Following the invalidation of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) earlier this year, public companies have begun reporting significant tariff refunds, expected recoveries, approved claims and refund receivables.

Calcbench has identified approximately $18.7 billion of gross tariff refunds across 101 public companies . The 11 largest company-specific amounts identified so far account for approximately $12.1 billion of the total, and they’re listed in the table below. (Normally we would do a top 10 list, but UPS and General Motors are tied at $500 million each, so we are treating the group as 11 rather than cutting them off at 10.)

The distribution is notably top-heavy. The 11 companies in the table above represent roughly 65 percent of the $18.7 billion we’ve identified across the whole 101 firms in our sample group; and the five largest account for 45 percent. 

That concentration rhymes with a broader pattern visible across many parts of today’s marketplace: a relatively small number of very large companies often account for a disproportionate share of the aggregate dollars.

* Apple's tariff-refund impact was disclosed in its fiscal Q3 2026 earnings press release, not in the 10-Q. The company reported quarterly revenue of $109.4 billion and gross margin of 50.1%, including a favorable impact of approximately two percentage points from tariff refunds, and diluted EPS of $2.02, including a $0.11 favorable impact from tariff refunds. Applying the gross-margin effect to quarterly revenue produces an estimated gross recovery of approximately $2.19 billion; we did not rely on the EPS impact and share count, which would produce a similar but not identical estimate.

** General Motors described a net $0.5 billion favorable adjustment primarily attributable to previously charged, refundable IEEPA tariffs. We use that amount as the best disclosed estimate rather than treating it as a separately reported cash receipt. GM separately disclosed an estimated $2.5–3.5 billion full-year EBIT-adjusted impact from the broader tariff environment; that figure is a forward-looking net cost estimate covering largely non-IEEPA tariffs and is unrelated to the refund pool measured here. Masco disclosed a similar net-only figure: approximately $95 million of net tariff benefit, principally in its Plumbing Products segment, for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2026 (indicating the full amount was recognized in the second quarter). As with GM, no separate gross or total-paid figure was disclosed alongside it. Dollar General took this a step further, disclosing only basis-point impacts directly (81 basis points to gross margin, 66 basis points to operating margin, both explicitly "after related reinvestments") and a $0.25 per-share EPS benefit, with no dollar figure anywhere in its release. We estimated approximately $55.5 million by backing into implied diluted shares from disclosed net income and EPS ($550.3 million ÷ $2.48 ≈ 221.9 million shares) and applying the per-share benefit — a derived, net-of-reinvestment, after-tax estimate, not a company-disclosed figure.

Why these refunds are difficult to find

Among the 11 largest recoveries, narrative-only disclosure accounts for 52 percent of the dollar amounts. Company-specific XBRL extension tags account for for 19 percent, and standard FASB-taxonomy tags for 5 percent. 

The remaining 24 percent — the single largest dollar amount in this group — was disclosed only verbally, on Walmart's earnings call, and does not yet appear in any SEC filing. A search of the standard FASB XBRL taxonomy alone would miss the large majority of the money sitting in just the largest recoveries. Companies have used at least four different disclosure approaches:

1. Standard FASB taxonomy tags and dimensions. Amazon and a number of other companies reported refund amounts using a standard tag such as RecoveryOfDirectCosts , combined with an IEEPA tariff-refund dimension.
2. Company-specific XBRL extension tags. Nike used InternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersActExpectedRecoveryOfTariffsPaid . FedEx used ProceedsFromInternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersActTariffs . UPS used IEEPATariffRefundClaimsSubmitted .
3. Narrative or earnings disclosures. Apple, Ford, Target and General Motors disclosed material amounts without a directly usable numeric XBRL fact identifying the refund.
4. Spoken commentary only, with no numeric disclosure in any filing. Walmart's CFO stated on the company's Q2 FY27 earnings call that Walmart "was eligible for approximately $2.9 billion of tariff refunds, amounting to approximately 0.5% of our annual U.S. net sales," and that "to date, we have received substantially all of these tariff refunds." At the time of this analysis, that figure does not appear in Walmart's earnings release, its 37-page investor presentation, or any SEC filing — only in the recording of the call itself.
5. Disclosed only inside a non-GAAP reconciliation table. Boston Scientific's $83 million IEEPA tariff refund appears exclusively as a line item in its Q2 2026 non-GAAP earnings reconciliation exhibit, treated as a one-time add-back excluded from adjusted results in the same manner as restructuring or litigation charges. Fortive followed the identical pattern at a smaller scale: its 10-Q risk-factor language confirmed that refund claims were being submitted and approved amounts recognized within cost of sales, but disclosed no figure there; the $4.5 million pretax amount appeared only in the separate earnings release's non-GAAP reconciliation. Motorola Solutions disclosed its $60 million pretax benefit ($0.25 per share) the same way, in a single reconciliation footnote within its earnings release. Urban Outfitters followed the same pattern with a $95.66 million figure, shown using the standard parenthetical-negative convention as an add-back subtracted from GAAP results to arrive at adjusted figures.
6. Acknowledged but never quantified. First Solar disclosed that receivables for outstanding IEEPA refund claims as of June 30, 2026 were included within "Other current assets," a balance sheet line that totaled $741.4 million as of June 30, 2026 (up from $643.1 million at December 31, 2025) — but the company never isolated what portion of that total, or its increase, related to tariff refunds specifically. We could not extract a comparable figure and have not included First Solar in the totals above.
7. Quantified, but recognized as zero. Deckers Outdoor disclosed a total gross amount of tariffs paid of approximately $120,000 — immaterial at this analysis's scale — and stated explicitly that it had recognized none of it as of the filing date, applying a gain contingency model under ASC 450 and noting that cost-sharing arrangements with its independent manufacturers may mean its own net exposure is smaller than the gross figure regardless. Not included in the totals above.

Caterpillar is an especially useful example, even though its $392 million recovery has since fallen just outside this top group. It tagged the recovery as ReceivableForRecoveryOfImportDutiesNet. The tag itself does not mention IEEPA or tariffs. The accompanying text explains that the amount represents expected IEEPA recoveries for claims submitted and accepted through the government's CAPE system. 

Caterpillar also disclosed that its total IEEPA tariff costs since the tariffs took effect were approximately $1 billion — meaning roughly $600 million of its own paid tariffs ae not yet reflected in any refund total, ours included, pending further CAPE claim submissions and approvals. 

Capri Holdings pushed the same problem further; it accounted for its $65 million IEEPA tariff refund receivable under ASC 410-30, Environmental Obligations — an accounting standard written for environmental remediation, applied here by analogy — which means its XBRL facts are tagged using environmental-remediation elements with an IEEPA dimension attached. A search for tariff-specific or import-duty-specific tags would never surface it.

Company-specific totals require review

The facts also cannot simply be added together to give you a clear sense of tariff refunds. A company may disclose a consolidated recovery, business-segment components, cash received to date, a remaining receivable and a related liability; adding them all together could lead you down a wildly inaccurate path.

Nike, for example, reported a consolidated recovery of $986 million, disclosed in Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies of its 10-K filed July 15, 2026. It also reported $965 million for North America, $21 million for Converse and $302 million of proceeds received. The $965 million and $21 million are components of the $986 million total, while the $302 million is a cash-receipt subset. Adding all four observations would substantially overstate Nike's recovery.

UPS provides another example. Its disclosure reported approximately $500 million of approved Phase 1 claims, consisting of $200 million received and $300 million recorded as a receivable. The correct company-level amount is $500 million, not $1 billion — but if you added all three items together, $1 billion is what you’d get. 

Resideo Technologies and ADI Global Distribution present a third, structurally different version of the same trap. Resideo recognized approximately $27 million of IEEPA tariff refunds in its consolidated Q2 2026 results. ADI Global Distribution — Resideo's sole operating segment prior to its August 2026 spin-off — separately disclosed approximately $20 million of IEEPA refunds in its own pre-spin-off combined financial statements, covering the same period during which ADI was still wholly owned by Resideo. 

The $20 million is almost certainly a subset of Resideo's $27 million, not an additional amount; we count only Resideo's consolidated figure. A spin-off's carve-out financial statements can create the same kind of overlap as a company's own internal segment reporting, just across two separate SEC filers rather than within one.

What the $18.7 billion represents

For this first stage of the analysis, Calcbench is measuring the gross tariff-refund pool. The total includes disclosed refunds, expected recoveries, approved claims, refund receivables and clearly identified eligible amounts.

Where a company discloses both a cash-received amount and a separately recognized receivable for the remainder, we use the cash-received figure only, not the combined total. 

LCI Industries, for example, disclosed $94.9 million actually received alongside a separate $24.4 million receivable deemed probable but not yet collected; we use $94.9 million. Xylem disclosed $4 million received and a separate $12 million receivable; we use $4 million. 

This is a deliberate choice, and not the only defensible one; a reasonable rationale exists for using the full recognized total instead, since a receivable deemed probable under U.S. GAAP is not a speculative number. 

We chose the more conservative figure for consistency across companies with very different disclosure structures. Where a company discloses only a single recognized amount with no cash-received breakout at all — Solventum and McCormick among them — that total is the only figure available and is used as-is. 

Zimmer Biomet is a clean example of this: it states it "received a portion" of its $77 million in previously paid tariffs during the second quarter but never quantifies that portion separately, so the full $77 million recognized under its loss recovery accounting model is the figure used here. Calcbench's underlying data captures both the cash-received and total-recognized figures wherever a company discloses the split, so a reader who prefers the alternative convention can reconstruct it directly from the same source data. 

One further caveat applies to a single company: International Flavors & Fragrances disclosed $18 million of tariff refunds received, but explicitly net of amounts expected to be remitted to customers — the only entry in this analysis where the figure itself is already net rather than gross, with neither the gross amount received nor the size of the customer obligation being netted out separately disclosed. We include it at $18 million since no other figure is available, but it is not strictly comparable on a gross basis to every other company in this table.

We have not yet reduced the amounts for obligations to return refunds to customers or share them with suppliers, and the size of that reduction varies enormously by company. Target and Amazon, by contrast, disclosed no customer-refund liability at all — both recognized their refunds as a direct reduction of Cost of Sales with no stated pass-through obligation, implying the full amount was retained. 

FedEx received approximately $800 million and separately reported a $749 million customer-refund liability, leaving roughly $51 million retained net — about 6 percent of the gross figure. Medline's $332 million recovery carried an $89 million estimated customer-repayment accrual, implying roughly $243 million retained net, or about 73 percent. Cardinal Health's $200 million receivable produced a disclosed net operating-earnings benefit of approximately $100 million for the quarter, or roughly 50 percent retained, once its own customer repayment obligation is factored in. 

UPS's situation is structurally different from the other three. UPS describes itself as acting as an intermediary for cross-border shipments, at times paying tariffs on behalf of customers and passing those costs through under its contract terms. It recorded the full $500 million of CBP-approved refunds within Other current liabilities rather than as a straightforward asset, and has disclosed no dollar figure for what portion, if any, it expects to retain once entries are reconciled and refunds are passed through. That makes UPS's $500 million harder to compare directly to FedEx's, Medline's, or Cardinal Health's gross figures, which represent tariffs those companies paid on their own imported goods. 

Walmart presents a fifth pattern: no customer-refund liability, but an explicit statement that the benefit is being funneled into price investments rather than kept as pure margin. Walmart's own earnings materials note that adjusted operating income growth in constant currency of approximately 17 percent included a 750-basis-point net benefit from tariff refunds received, after accounting for those price investments — implying a current-quarter net operating income effect of roughly $600 million, a much smaller number than the $2.9 billion cumulative refund figure disclosed on the call.

On Holding sits at the opposite extreme from Walmart. As of June 30, 2026, the Swiss footwear and apparel company had paid CHF 55.6 million in IEEPA tariffs and submitted CHF 52.7 million for refund processing, but recognized none of it — applying a "virtually certain" recognition threshold, stricter than the "probable" standard used by most companies in this analysis, and concluding that bar had not yet been met. By August 11, 2026, the company reported it had actually received approximately CHF 27.9 million, to be recognized in the third quarter.

Hubbell followed a similar pattern on a smaller scale: as of June 30, 2026, it had recognized nothing under its ASC 450-30 gain contingency model, but disclosed as a subsequent event that it had since received approximately $30 million in refunds. We count both On Holding's and Hubbell's actually-received amounts in the total, on the basis that real cash changing hands is a meaningful threshold even when formal accounting recognition lags behind it. Trimble adds a further variation: of its $17.8 million approved refund, it received $13.9 million in cash during the quarter, but structured its planned customer refunds as a reduction of revenue rather than a cost-side liability the way FedEx, Medline, and Cardinal Health did — the same underlying obligation to share the benefit with customers, booked on a different line of the income statement. Williams-Sonoma introduces a direction none of the others do: of its $197.8 million initial claim (all but $3.2 million collected as of August 2, 2026), $47.5 million was provisioned not for customers but to reimburse merchandise vendors who had previously extended the company tariff-related price concessions — benefit flowing upstream to suppliers rather than downstream to customers. Williams-Sonoma also directed $10.0 million of the refund toward a one-time discretionary 401(k) contribution for its employees, a voluntary use of the windfall rather than an accounting obligation of any kind. TJX went much further in the same direction: of its $331 million in gross refunds, it accrued $112 million of incremental incentive compensation and discretionary bonus expense for employees globally, netting to a $219 million pretax profit benefit — a formal accrued expense more than eleven times the size of Williams-Sonoma's, showing that directing refund proceeds to employees is a repeatable choice, not a single company's gesture. The Gap confirmed this is not a one-off: of its $512 million in gross tariff refunds, $95 million was committed to certain vendors as what the company called a "commitment of appreciation," netting to $417 million recognized in cost of goods sold. We include UPS's full $500 million and Walmart's full $2.9 billion in the $18.7 billion gross pool, consistent with how every other company's gross figure is treated, but readers should not assume either company retains anything close to its full disclosed amount.

****** On Holding reports in Swiss francs. We converted its approximately CHF 27.9 million received to approximately $34.3 million using an approximate CHF/USD exchange rate of 1.23 for the relevant period; we did not attempt to pin down the exact daily rate, since the currency effect at this size is immaterial to the totals in this analysis. On Holding's disclosure is, to our knowledge, the most conservative recognition posture of any company covered here: despite CHF 55.6 million paid and CHF 52.7 million already submitted for processing, none of it had been recognized in the financial statements as of June 30, 2026.

The immediate task is to identify and ringfence the gross refund population. Based on disclosures identified so far, that population totals approximately $18.7 billion across 101 public companies . The figure is a moving target in the most literal sense: Target and Lowe's each disclosed material IEEPA tariff refund impacts after this analysis was first compiled, adding a combined $1.08 billion and pushing Target directly into the top three; Walmart then disclosed, verbally, an amount larger than any other company's, adding a further $2.9 billion and taking the top spot outright. Target recognized $994 million as a reduction of Cost of Sales for the quarter and six months ended August 1, 2026, with no disclosed customer pass-through obligation. Lowe's disclosed a $0.11 per-share benefit to diluted and adjusted diluted EPS; applied to approximately 560 million diluted shares, that implies an after-tax impact of roughly $61.6 million, or approximately $81 million on a pre-tax basis grossed up at Lowe's approximate 24% effective tax rate.*** Caterpillar, separately, has disclosed roughly $600 million of its own paid IEEPA tariffs that are not yet reflected in any recovery figure, pending further CAPE claim submissions and approvals, and Cardinal Health noted that the majority of its refund requests fall under CBP's Phase 2 process, launched only in June 2026, with additional phases still to come. Taken together, these are concrete examples of a broader dynamic: CBP's refund process is still working through its early phases, and the total measured here reflects what has been recognized to date, not the full population of IEEPA tariffs eventually expected to be refunded. John Deere, reported separately, disclosed tariff recoveries of $110 million in its third fiscal quarter and $382 million for the first nine months of fiscal 2026 , embedded within its segment-level Production Costs reporting rather than called out as a standalone line — a reminder that some of the more generic "tariff recoveries" language in segment disclosures may be easy to overlook even when a specific dollar figure is present.*****

***** Deere's Q3 FY2026 disclosure does not use the term IEEPA and does not cite the Supreme Court ruling directly. We include it in this analysis on the basis of Deere's own fiscal 2025 Form 10-K, filed in late 2025, which stated: "On November 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court may provide tariff relief and the potential recovery of amounts previously paid. We are monitoring developments in this case and its impact on our future financial statements and business." Deere's subsequent "tariff recoveries" language, appearing in the first fiscal quarter after the ruling, is treated here as referring to that same IEEPA matter, though the Q3 disclosure itself does not make the connection explicit.

Advance Auto Parts, by contrast, disclosed a small but explicitly labeled figure: $26 million of second-quarter 2026 adjusted gross profit tied specifically to refunds of tariffs previously paid under IEEPA , with the company noting that the rest of its gross margin improvement was driven by unrelated merchandising initiatives. Unlike Deere's ambiguous phrasing, there is no inference required here — a useful reminder that disclosure quality varies as much among smaller amounts as it does among the largest ones.

*** Lowe's disclosed a $0.11 per-share benefit rather than a direct dollar figure. Applied to approximately 560 million diluted shares outstanding, this implies an after-tax net income impact of approximately $61.6 million. Because diluted EPS is an after-tax measure, we grossed this up using Lowe's approximate 24% effective tax rate (23.9% per its most recent 10-K) to estimate a pre-tax/gross figure of approximately $81 million, for rough comparability with the gross figures reported elsewhere in this analysis. Unlike Apple's gross-margin-based estimate, this figure is derived from an after-tax EPS impact and a tax-rate assumption and should be treated as a rougher approximation. At approximately $81 million, Lowe's does not rank among the largest recoveries identified so far.

**** Walmart's $2.9 billion figure comes from its Q2 FY27 earnings call (Bentonville, Ark., August 20, 2026), where the company's CFO stated Walmart "was eligible for approximately $2.9 billion of tariff refunds, amounting to approximately 0.5% of our annual U.S. net sales," and that "to date, we have received substantially all of these tariff refunds." At the time of this analysis, that figure does not appear in Walmart's earnings release, investor presentation, or any SEC filing; we cite the recording of the call directly, at approximately the 23:40–23:54 mark. Separately, Walmart's investor presentation states that adjusted operating income growth in constant currency of approximately 17% for the quarter included a 750-basis-point net benefit from tariff refunds received, after accounting for offsetting price investments — a figure that implies a current-quarter net operating income effect of roughly $600 million, which is not directly comparable to the $2.9 billion cumulative eligibility figure disclosed on the call. We use $2.9 billion as Walmart's entry in this analysis for consistency with how every other company's cumulative gross figure is treated, while noting that it is currently the only figure in this dataset sourced entirely from spoken commentary rather than a written filing or press release.

The broader lesson: structured data is essential to this analysis, but relying on a single taxonomy tag is not sufficient. A complete result requires standard XBRL facts, company extensions, dimensions and narrative disclosure text to be analyzed together — and, as FedEx shows, the gross number is only half the story until the pass-through obligations are netted out.

That’s it, folks — we now call time on our Q2 earnings updates! With more than 3,600 non-financial companies in our sample, we have reams of financial disclosures to review and ponder, so let’s get to it. 

Now that just about all S&P 500 firms have filed their Q2 earnings reports, let’s take a closer look at financial performance and economic trends hidden within those numbers. First up: capex spending.

Capital expenditures are always a useful disclosure to observe because it helps analysts understand broader economic trends. If capex is rising, that means firms are confident enough in their business prospects to make more investments for long-term growth. If it’s falling, that suggests businesses are less confident about future growth and would rather preserve cash.

The debate these days, of course, is whether capex spending for corporations as a whole is being distorted by a small number of tech firms spending zillions of dollars on AI data centers — and whether, if you strip those AI hyperscalers out of the analysis, capex spending is not as good as the overall number seems. So the Calcbench research team (read: intern trying to look busy) used our Multi-Company page to investigate.

Answer: yes. The AI hyperscalers are skewing the capex spending curve for everyone else.

Specifically, the S&P 500 reported $416.77 billion in net capital expenditures in Q2 2026. That’s a 32.5 percent increase from the $314.44 billion reported in Q2 2025. Sounds good so far, right? 

But $188.24 billion of that Q2-2026 number (that is, 45 percent of the $416.77 billion total) came from six data center kingpins:

• Amazon ($AMZN)

• Alphabet ($GOOG)

• Microsoft ($MSFT)

• Meta Platforms ($META)

• Oracle Corp. ($ORCL)

• Micron Technology ($MU)

If we exclude those six data center players, then capex spending didn’t jump 32.5 percent in Q2. It rose only 6.3 percent from the year-ago period, a far less impressive number. 

And who are these biggest spenders, you ask? We simply sorted our findings from largest to smallest, and answered the question instantly. See Figure 2, below.

Wow. No hyperscaler even cracked the Top 5 this quarter. And the first non-hyperscalers that do make an appearance are global behemoths such as Walmart ($WMT), Tesla ($TSLA) and AT&T ($T). Of course those folks would be near the top somewhere.

This also raises another question. If the AI hyperscalers are skewing the total picture on capex spending, are they doing the same on other financial statement items too? We’ve noted previously that Google, for example, booked a $97.8 billion one-time gain on the value of SpaceX ($SPCX) shares that it owns, which inflated overall net income growth considerably this quarter. 

So what other outlier events are exerting a larger gravitational effect on corporate performance, and to what extent? Stay tuned for more analysis in future posts!

Next week marks the official end of Q2 earnings season, when Nvidia ($NVDA) closes out the season with its earnings announcement on Aug. 26. Of course Calcbench will have that data too, but for now let’s see what the big picture for corporate earnings looks like with earnings from 3,500 non-financial companies already on file.

Following the invalidation of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), public companies have begun reporting significant tariff refunds, expected recoveries, approved claims and refund receivables.

Calcbench has identified approximately $9.4 billion of gross tariff refunds across 55 public companies. The 10 largest company-level amounts identified so far account for approximately $7.8 billion of the total:

The distribution is decidedly top-heavy. Those 10 companies with the largest amounts represent approximately 83% of the $9.4 billion total, and the five largest account for approximately 63%. That concentration tracks with a broader pattern visible across many parts of today’s marketplace: a relatively small number of very large companies often account for a disproportionate share of the aggregate dollars.

* Apple reported that tariff refunds added approximately 2 percentage points to quarterly gross margin and $0.11 to diluted earnings per share. Applying the gross-margin effect to quarterly revenue of $109.417 billion produces an estimated gross recovery of approximately $2.19 billion.

** General Motors described a net $0.5 billion favorable adjustment primarily attributable to previously charged, refundable IEEPA tariffs. We use that amount as the best disclosed estimate rather than treating it as a separately reported cash receipt.

Why these refunds are difficult to find

A search of the standard FASB XBRL taxonomy finds a meaningful portion of the population, but it does not find everything. Companies have used at least three different disclosure approaches:

1. Standard FASB taxonomy tags and dimensions. Amazon and a number of other companies reported refund amounts using a standard tag such as RecoveryOfDirectCosts, combined with an IEEPA tariff-refund dimension.
2. Company-specific XBRL extension tags. Nike used InternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersActExpectedRecoveryOfTariffsPaid. FedEx used ProceedsFromInternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersActTariffs. UPS used IEEPATariffRefundClaimsSubmitted.
3. Narrative or earnings disclosures. Apple, Ford and General Motors disclosed material amounts without a directly usable numeric XBRL fact identifying the refund.

Caterpillar is an especially useful example. It tagged its $392 million recovery as ReceivableForRecoveryOfImportDutiesNet but the tag itself does not mention IEEPA or tariffs. The accompanying text explains that the amount represents expected IEEPA recoveries for claims submitted and accepted through the government's CAPE system.

Company-level totals require review

The facts also cannot simply be added together. A company may disclose a consolidated recovery, business-segment components, cash received to date, a remaining receivable and a related liability.

Nike, for example, reported a consolidated recovery of $986 million. It also reported $965 million for North America, $21 million for Converse and $302 million of proceeds received. The $965 million and $21 million are components of the $986 million total, while the $302 million is a cash-receipt subset. Adding all four observations would substantially overstate Nike's recovery.

UPS provides another example. It reported approximately $500 million of approved Phase 1 claims, consisting of approximately $200 million received and $300 million recorded as a receivable. The correct company-level amount is $500 million, not $1.0 billion.

What the $9.4 billion represents

For this first stage of the analysis, Calcbench is measuring the gross tariff-refund pool. The total includes disclosed refunds, expected recoveries, approved claims, refund receivables, and clearly identified eligible amounts.

We have not yet reduced the amounts for obligations to return refunds to customers or share them with suppliers. FedEx, for example, received approximately $800 million and separately reported a $749 million customer-refund liability. UPS also expects to pass approved refunds through to customers. Those obligations are important, but they answer a different question: How much of the gross refund will each company ultimately retain?

The immediate task is to identify and ringfence the gross refund population. Based on disclosures identified so far, that population totals approximately $9.4 billion across 55 public companies. The figure is likely to grow as more companies report and as additional extension-tagged and narrative disclosures are identified.

The broader lesson: structured data is essential to this analysis, but relying on a single taxonomy tag is not sufficient. A complete result requires standard XBRL facts, company extensions, dimensions, and narrative disclosure text to be analyzed altogether.

We are now nearing the end of Q2 earnings season, with data from more than 3,000 non-financial companies in our sample group. At this point the overall picture isn’t likely to change much, and it really hasn’t changed much since last week either: this has been a good quarter for Corporate America.

Everyone knows that the tech giants and AI hyperscalers are betting big on data centers. Calcbench has been taking a deep dive into Q2 disclosures of those companies, and today we offer a better sense of how big those bets are.

This was a busy week for corporate earnings, as more than 1,000 companies across a wide range of industries filed their Q2 earnings reports. We now have 2,050 non-financial companies in our famed Earnings Tracker, so let’s see where things stand.

Eli Lilly & Co. filed its Q2 earnings this morning. That gives us an excellent excuse to crack open the Calcbench databases and dine on Lilly’s disclosures about its blockbuster weight-loss drugs Zepbound and Mounjaro.

Calcbench tracks these earnings using our Earnings Tracker template, which pulls in financial disclosures as companies file their latest earnings releases with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Earnings Tracker provides an up-to-the minute snapshot of financial performance compared to the year-earlier period.

If Calcbench subscribers wish to get their hands on the template we use for this analysis, so you can conduct your own experiments at home, use this link to the file. 

Please note that it will only work with an active Calcbench subscription. If you need an active subscription (and who doesn’t, really, when swift access to real-time data is so important?), contact us at us@calcbench.com.

That’s all for this week. Come back next Friday for more!

Everyone probably knew well ahead of major U.S. airlines filing their Q2 earnings that fuel costs would be bad — but wow, did anyone expect it would be this bad? 

Now that we have more companies filing their Q2 earnings releases and quarterly reports, we wanted to take another pass at one of our favorite corporate disclosure issues these days — tariff refunds!

The famed Calcbench Earnings Tracker is now back in action, for our first analysis of Q2 2026 earnings data. So far, among the large companies that dominate the beginning of earnings season, the overall numbers look solid.

As you can see, several banks — Goldman and JPMorgan foremost, but to a lesser extent Wells Fargo too — have seen ROE grow nicely since the start of the year. No wonder the banks’ share prices all jumped today and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said conditions were “getting close to as good as it gets.” (Of course, he also said in the next breath, “We just don’t know how long it’s going to last.”)

Honestly this chart is nothing especially insightful; we just use it to demonstrate the speed and ease of pulling precise information from the sea of disclosures that large companies routinely make in their earnings reports. We built this chart in less than two minutes, less than five minutes after the fifth and final bank in our sample (Citigroup) filed its earnings data at 9:41 a.m. ET.

You could run this exercise yourself any time through the Multi-Company page; or automate the process entirely by using our API to mainline earnings data directly into your own models. Email us at us@calcbench.com if you want to find out how!

 Delta Air Lines ($DAL) filed its Q2 2026 earnings statement on Friday, and we all know what that means: an opportunity to see just how ugly airlines’ fuel expenses are these days. Prepare for a rapid ascent, readers. 

Just for giggles, we calculated the angle of that Q2 upward spike. It’s roughly 76.5 degrees. Now imagine the fastest, steepest take-off you’ve ever experienced on a plane, one where your stomach slid into your shoes. At most, that ascent would be only 15 degrees. So that gives you a sense of how fast fuel costs were accelerating for Delta this spring — and Delta is among the better managers of fuel costs because it owns its own refinery, which Delta estimates shaved off about 5 cents of cost per gallon.  

We will have an updated fuel cost chart at the end of July once the other five airlines file their earnings statements. Meanwhile, marvel at what’s happening here.

Other Performance Metrics

The fuel costs were the buzzkill for Delta’s Q2 performance. Revenue actually rose 18.7 percent from the year-ago period, to $19.76 billion; and the crucial metric known as TRASM (total revenue per available seat mile) jumped 17 percent, from 24.11 cents one year ago to 25.11 cents today. So far, so good.

But total fuel costs rose a whopping 67 percent, from $2.46 billion to $4.11 billion. Operating income then tumbled 11.3 percent to $1.86 billion, and net income dropped 24.7 percent to $1.6 billion — but hey, those numbers are still in black ink, which is better than the alternative.

Delta executives did say in the earnings release that they expect Q3 to improve, with EPS at $2.00 to $2.50 on an operating margin of 11 to 13 percent. But then came this:

"Non‑fuel unit cost performance is expected to improve modestly from the June quarter with further progression in the December quarter as capacity growth begins to normalize. This puts us back on a path toward our long-term framework of low-single-digit non-fuel unit cost growth."

We’d love that prediction to come true, but given the renewed hostilities with Iran this week, perhaps it won’t. Calcbench doesn’t know what that might mean for future performance, but we have all the airline data you need to make your own models. 

The good news for Calcbench subscribers is that you can quickly obtain all these non-GAAP disclosures by downloading our airlines template from DropBox. That template tracks all the major airlines and disclosures automatically, so the information is at your fingertips within minutes of the airline filing its latest earnings report. 

(Disclosure of our own: The template won’t work automatically unless you (a) are a Calcbench professional subscriber; and (b) have our Excel Add-In already installed. If you need help with either of those things, email us at us@calcbench.com any time.) 

Screening for credit stress across a bank cohort

Ahead of Q2 2026 bank earnings, we wanted to answer a specific question: is there evidence that bank customers — consumer and commercial borrowers alike — are under rising credit stress? Not for one bank, read off a single 10-Q, but systematically, across the sector, using Calcbench's standardized data.

This post walks through the method, what it found, and a wrinkle along the way that's arguably the more important lesson: a systematic screen is only as good as your willingness to double-check what it flags.

The method

Provision for loan loss (PLL) is the natural starting point for a credit-stress question — it's the expense banks book each quarter in anticipation of loans going bad. But raw PLL dollars are a noisy signal on their own. A bank's provision grows simply because its loan book is growing, independent of whether borrower quality is deteriorating. To separate “more loans” from “worse loans,” we normalized provision by the loan book itself:

PLL ratio = Provision for Loan Loss ÷ Loans Receivable

Using Calcbench's standardized metrics ( ProvisionForLoanLoss and LoansReceivable , both available as clean, comparable fields across filers), we built:

• •  A universe of national commercial banks, SIC code 6021, with total assets of $20 billion or more — pulled live via the Calcbench API, so it stays current as banks cross the threshold or merge away.You could also use the Calcbench Excel Addin or the Calcbench Multi Company page.
• •  The trailing 16 quarters of data (Q2 2022 through Q1 2026, the most recent quarter filed as of this writing) plus full-year annual totals for additional context.
• •  A minimum-coverage filter, requiring at least 12 of 16 quarters of valid data before a bank is included in any chart, so recent IPOs or fiscal-year mismatches don't clutter the picture with broken, partial lines.

First pass: the mega banks diverge

Looking first at the largest, most closely watched banks — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo — raw provision dollars already tell a real, if modest, story of divergence rather than a uniform trend. (These four have loan books of a broadly similar scale, so the dollar figures are directly comparable here; we apply the normalized ratio once we broaden to the full bank universe below, where asset sizes vary far more.)

Citi and BAC show a sustained multi-year build in provisioning — consistent with, though not proof of, rising credit stress in their books. JPMorgan is essentially flat. Wells Fargo, notably, is heading the other direction entirely, with provisions declining each year. That's not what a uniform “the consumer is under stress” narrative would predict — it's a genuinely mixed picture, and worth watching whether the Citi/BAC trend continues into Q2 2026.

Broadening the screen — and a red flag

Expanding the universe to the full set of $20B+ SIC 6021 banks, one name jumped out immediately: Capital One , whose PLL ratio looked like the most stressed loan book in the entire cohort.

On the surface, that's plausible — Capital One's business is concentrated in credit cards, a structurally higher-loss, higher-yield lending category than traditional commercial banking. But the size and shape of the signal didn't look like ordinary credit-card seasoning. It looked like a single, enormous spike.

The Discover effect

Pulling Capital One's PLL ratio quarter by quarter tells the real story:

In every quarter shown outside Q2 2025, Capital One's ratio sits in a steady 0.65%–1.30% band — comparable in kind to the other mega banks. Then, in a single quarter, loans receivable jumps by $107.7 billion and provision expense jumps to $11.43 billion, more than four times the typical run rate. The very next quarter, both numbers snap back to normal.

That $107.7 billion jump in loans receivable is not organic loan growth — it's Discover Financial's loan portfolio landing on Capital One's balance sheet at the close of the Capital One–Discover merger in May 2025. Under CECL accounting, acquiring a loan portfolio typically requires booking a large “day one” provision against the acquired book, even though those loans aren't newly risky — the reserve reflects an accounting requirement at the moment of acquisition, not a change in the borrowers' behavior.

We also checked whether this distortion showed up elsewhere. It does: Capital One's net income briefly went negative in the same quarter (a loss of roughly $4.3 billion, against revenue that fell to just over $1 billion, driven by the same provision mechanic flowing through Calcbench's standardized bank revenue definition). Every downstream metric that touches provision or net income in that quarter tells the same distorted story for the same underlying reason.

Why this matters more than the finding itself

Excluding the merger quarter, Capital One's credit trend actually looks unremarkable — stable, in a similar range to the other mega banks, with no clear deterioration. The “riskiest loan book in the cohort” read was, in the end, a single quarter of merger accounting, not a multi-year trend.

That's arguably the more useful lesson here. Standardized data makes it possible to run a systematic credit-stress screen across dozens of banks in minutes rather than reading 10-Qs one at a time — but a screen that ranks a ratio and stops there will happily flag M&A activity as “stress” right alongside genuine deterioration. The value of the data is in the breadth it unlocks; the value of the analysis is in knowing which spikes deserve a second look before they go in a headline.

What we're watching into Q2 2026

• •  Does the Citi / Bank of America upward provisioning trend continue, or has it plateaued?
• •  With the Discover integration quarter now a year behind it, does Capital One's PLL ratio look clean and back in its normal band, and is that number, going forward, a meaningful signal on card-lending stress?
• •  Do any other banks in the broader $20B+ universe show a Citi/BAC-style multi-year build worth flagging before earnings land?

We'll revisit this screen once Q2 2026 filings are in.

Second-quarter earnings reports will start hitting the wires any day now, and analysts should expect a lot of talk about tariffs — specifically, how much money companies are expecting in tariff refunds, and how those refunds will flow through the financial statements.

Today we have a primer on how companies might disclose all that thanks to Helen of Troy ($HELE), maker of home healthcare and beauty products. Helen filed its latest quarterly report on Wednesday (its fiscal Q1 2027, for the quarter ending May 31) and had quite a bit to say about the tariff refunds it expects since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump Administration’s IEEPA tariffs earlier this year. 

Helen made the disclosures in the Management Discussion & Analysis of its 10-Q. For starters, the company said it paid $80.5 million in IEEPA tariffs in its fiscal 2026, which ran from March 1, 2025 to Feb. 28, 2026. That’s roughly 8.3 percent of the $970.6 million Helen reported as cost of goods sold for the year. 

Then came the good stuff. Helen said it submitted reimbursement claims worth $6 million to the Trump Administration in May 2026, during its fiscal Q1 2027. Of that amount… 

“As of May 31, 2026 we concluded that $1.9 million of tariff refunds were probable of being recovered and recorded a receivable within prepaids and other current assets, along with corresponding reductions to Cost of Goods Sold of $1.8 million and inventory of $0.1 million in our condensed consolidated financial statements.”

Ah ha! This is the first substantive disclosure we’ve seen not just of how much money a company expects in tariffs refunds; but also how those amounts will be reported in the financial statements. So we know that Helen… 

• Paid $80.5 million in tariffs in fiscal 2026

• Applied for $6 million in tariff refunds in fiscal Q1 2027

• Was certain enough about receiving $1.9 million in refunds that Helen booked them as accounts receivable;

• And matched the $1.9 million gain in accounts receivable to a reduction of $1.8 million in cost of goods sold and of $100,000 in inventory.

In one form or another, we’ll probably see similar accounting treatments from other companies too. For example, last week we noted that Nike ($NIKE) disclosed $986 million in “expected recovery” of tariffs — but Nike never expressly said what “expected recovery” means, or where that $986 million will show up in the 10-Q (which, as of July 8, Nike has yet to file). 

We kinda sorta assumed that Nike’s $986 million will show up as accounts receivable, but we still don’t know for sure. Now comes Helen of Troy proving that you can indeed get tariff refunds onto the financial statements in that manner. 

Even better, Helen also made additional disclosures about more tariff refunds it sought after its May 31 period-end: 

Subsequent to the first quarter of fiscal 2027, in June 2026, we submitted additional Phase 1 refund claims totaling $3.2 million related to our Beauty & Wellness segment. On June 29, 2026, CBP launched Phase 2 of the IEEPA refund claims process, which we are in the process of preparing. As of July 1, 2026, we received partial payments totaling $1.6 million for our Phase 1 tariff refunds and an immaterial amount of interest. 

Lots to unpack there. First, Helen says it has now received $1.6 million in “Phase 1” refunds, which were all part of the $1.9 million it booked as a receivable for the period that ended on May 31. 

Plus, Helen filed for an additional $3.2 million in Phase 1 tariffs after the May 31 period-close. How much of that sum will Helen be able to book as a receivable by the end of the current period? We don’t know, but we do know it can’t be more than the $3.2 million in total claims submitted. (It’s also possible that Uncle Sam will pay out the whole amount by the next earnings release.)

And finally, let’s not overlook that “Phase 2” refund window. Helen didn’t say how much it will seek as a refund in Phase 2 — but we do know the company paid $80.5 million in total IEEPA tariffs; and has already submitted claims worth $9.2 million (the $6 million submitted last quarter, and the additional $3.2 million submitted in the current quarter). So at most, Helen can only seek another $71.3 million. 

We should also note that in Helen’s earnings release the company does report a total benefit of $9.2 million from Phase 1 tariff refunds, just like we figured out in the above paragraph. Helen did not speculate about how much more in refunds it might get: “The company’s outlook… excludes any potential benefit from future refund phases due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing and collectability of those refunds.”

That’s how accounting for uncertain gains is supposed to work. A company can’t put down specific numbers until it’s confident in both the amount and the timing of when the gain will arrive. 

Regardless, gains from tariff refunds are coming. Helen just gave us a preview of how that might look like.

Today we continue our look at trends in non-GAAP reporting, based on the findings of our annual analysis of non-GAAP adjustments to net income among S&P 500 firms.