After the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs in February and the government launched a refund portal in April, companies who had submitted refund requests began to see those funds hit their accounts this spring. In recent earnings calls, publicly traded retailers disclosed just how much they’ve gotten back: Williams-Sonoma received nearly $200 million in tariff refunds and related interest (which contributed to a 6.7 percent increase in overall revenue year to year); Ethan Allen got $5 million in refunds; Arhaus got $37.8 million in refunds and $1.3 million in interest; and RH received $55.1 million in the second quarter and expects to receive the remaining $13.9 million in the second half of the year.

While it might sound like simple good news that companies are getting their money back, the reality is messier, as the industry tries to sort out who is owed what from the 10-month period the tariffs were in effect. The refunds raise an important question: Should importers put the cash back into their own coffers to help offset a challenging environment, distribute it to the partners who helped them survive a tough period, or some combination of both?

The issue is a heated one in some corners. In a recent column for Home News Now, the media company’s publisher, Rick Harrison, details the growing tension as furniture retailers pressure wholesale manufacturers for refund kickbacks, arguing that they deserve the funds as compensation for the margin squeeze they endured to keep prices low.

Many companies are simply keeping the refunds to make up for lost revenue. That is the plan for Florida-based designer Dwayne Bergmann, the co-founder of home brand Barrett Bergmann Home—who is still awaiting a refund he filed for in July. “As a company, we did not pass on tariff costs. We didn’t increase any of our pricing for our products; we simply absorbed that as a cost increase,” he says. “So it reduced our overall profit, and [the refund] will simply go back into the company operating account [under] cost of goods sold.”

John Greenawalt of Stout Textiles filed for refunds the day the government portal opened, and started to see money trickle in by mid-May; by August, the company had received almost all of the funds it applied for. “Everything we’ve received back has gone into reducing the ongoing increase in overhead costs. Shipping and fuel surcharges are through the roof these days. Raw materials, warehouse supplies, everything has just increased, and we have not implemented a price increase since the very beginning of the year,” says Greenawalt. “So even though the tariffs went away, they were just replaced with new 301 tariffs, which—with the exception of India—really didn’t change the landscape that much. They did come down slightly, but not a significant amount. And the fuel increases certainly outweighed that. Any refund that we received has gone into trying to lower shipping costs for our customers.”

Wayfair also briefly touched on tariff refunds in its Q2 earnings call last month, where CEO Niraj Shah detailed how some of the brands that list on its platform are reinvesting the money into new product: “We have not seen tariff refunds affect prices in the marketplace. It’s sort of a one-time working capital benefit companies will get,” he said. “What we’re seeing in our supplier base is there’s a lot of interest and they’ve been trying to drive new product development, but [these refunds] give them the capital to bring in more new product and to go deeper on inventory.” Arhaus also announced plans in its second-quarter earnings call to reinvest a portion of the refunds into “strategic growth initiatives” and “offsetting elevated operating costs.”

Other businesses are taking the refunds and sending them elsewhere, whether to other companies that offered assistance during the tariff period or straight to the end consumers. Alex Shuford, CEO of Rock House Designer Brands, hopes to go the latter route, but acknowledges that the process will be long. “We have begun getting some refunds for the specific IEEPA tariffs, which of course doesn’t include any of the Section 232 or 301 tariffs [introduced over the spring and summer]. Sorting that all out is an administrative nightmare,” he says. “We are planning to run a process with our accounts allowing for refunds of certain tariff surcharge line items that were a direct result of the IEEPA tariffs in situations where those funds can be sent all the way back to the end consumer. Based on the administrative work this requires, we expect it to take months and start later this year.”

Williams-Sonoma announced last month that it would take $47.5 million of its $200 million refund to reimburse vendors that had given them discounts during the IEEPA tariffs. The company also said it would allocate $10 million toward some employees’ 401(k) accounts through a one-time contribution. Meanwhile RH announced on its Q2 earnings call this week that the company plans to use a portion of its refund to offset $50 million of cost increases it faced due to spiked oil prices.

Beyond the home industry, shipping companies including FedEx and UPS are going straight to the customer through refunds and shipping credits as well. Walmart (which received nearly $3 billion in refunds) rolled back prices on items for consumers, while Amazon (which reported $600 million in refunds) has sent direct refunds to some customers who purchased products with high import duties the company wasn’t able to absorb.

As the winding road of the tariff saga continues, importers are hopefully seeing some light at the end of the tunnel now that the money is back in their pockets (or soon to be). And even as new tariffs are materializing to replace the old ones, businesses are better off in one crucial way: They’ve already been through one wave of the Trump administration’s tariffs, so at least they have a better idea of what’s coming the next time around.