Morgan Stanley denied allegations by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service that it evaded tax on almost $1 billion worth of dividends more than a decade ago.

According to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, an Amsterdam-based subsidiary of a foreign bank filed five corporation tax returns between 2009 and 2013. The returns offset €124 million ($140 million) in tax relating to a total of €825 million in dividends paid on listed Dutch shares, the public prosecution service said in a statement Wednesday without identifying the bank. The prosecutor holds the European parent company and an employee involved at the time responsible.

Morgan Stanley confirmed it was the bank in question and rejected the allegations, saying it plans to contest the findings of the investigation by the country’s Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service. 

“Morgan Stanley rejects the Prosecutor’s allegations about this complex, decade-old matter and intends to contest them vigorously,” a spokesperson for Morgan Stanley said in an email. 

“Despite our full cooperation and the lack of clarity in the relevant tax legislation, the Prosecutor is basing this decision on an incomplete investigation and record, in violation of established process.” 

On Wednesday, the public prosecutor also imposed a fine of €14 million on ABN AMRO for intentionally filing incorrect tax returns between 2010 and 2013, the Dutch bank said in a statement. ABN AMRO said it will pay the fine to avoid potentially lengthy criminal proceedings, even though it wasn’t involved in the tax returns.

U.S. executives are shifting to long-term U.S.-focused strategies to deal with the volatility of the first months of the Trump administration, according to a new survey released Thursday by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PwC’s May 2025 Pulse Survey polled a group of 678 U.S. executives, including CFOs, finance leaders, tax leaders, chief audit executives and others, about the impact of the first 100 days of the Trump administration. 

It found that 48% of the business executives polled believe uncertainty will ease within a year — while others expect it to last longer, potentially through the next election. One- third (32%) of the executives surveyed expect more opportunities in the next year, and they’re already taking action to manage risk and adapt strategy. 

The top three drivers influencing short-term strategy shifts are: U.S. economic policy (48%), AI and data regulation (44%) and trade and tariff policy (41%). 

Their key areas of focus include implementing cost reductions, with 62%of the survey respondents taking initial steps or beyond. Other areas of focus include adjusting financial forecasts and budgets (59%) and diversifying suppliers (58%).

Artificial intelligence/data regulation ranks among the top three pressures for 44% of all executives (and it was especially high for executives in the technology, media and telecom sector at 53%).

Despite policy uncertainty and ongoing volatility, on average, 53% of companies have moved beyond the planning phase on key actions such as cost reduction, budget adjustments and supplier diversification. Nevertheless, 57% of executives say they’re missing opportunities because they can’t make decisions fast enough. 

“Business leaders aren’t waiting for perfect clarity,” said PwC US chief commercial officer Kathryn Kaminsky in a statement. “Even amid ongoing volatility, they’re taking clear, deliberate steps to adapt and build resilience. We’re seeing executives move quickly — balancing speed with long-term thinking. It’s not just about managing uncertainty, but about emerging stronger and ready to grow.” 

Only a third (33%) of the respondents cited corporate tax policy as a top three factor causing them to rethink their organization’s short-term strategy. Approximately half (51%) of the executives polled are pursuing M&A activity and 48% are modifying their company’s tax structure 

The inclusion of R&D expensing in the current tax bill that was passed by the House last week reflects themes from President Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, and the legislation had been widely anticipated. The bill also includes a modified, permanent extension of key provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, along with new tax incentives for both individuals and businesses. Senate action on the bill is expected in June, the report noted. It recommended techniques like tariff engineering and transfer pricing can work together to lower both duty and tax exposure across global operations.

The vast majority of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs were deemed illegal and blocked by the U.S. trade court, dealing a major blow to a pillar of his economic agenda.

A panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan issued a unanimous ruling Wednesday which sided with Democratic-led states and small businesses that accused Trump of wrongfully invoking an emergency law to justify the bulk of his levies. The court gave the administration 10 days to “effectuate” its order, but didn’t spell out any steps it must take to unwind the tariffs.

The order applies to Trump’s global flat tariff, elevated rates on China and others, and his fentanyl-related tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. Other tariffs imposed under different powers, like so-called Section 232 and Section 301 levies, are unaffected, and include the tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles.

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately have the final say in the high-stakes case that could impact trillions of dollars in global trade. For now, the ruling permanently blocks the tariffs unless the appeals court allows Trump to reinstate them during litigation.

U.S. stock-index futures jumped on the ruling, with contracts on the Nasdaq 100 Index rising as much as 2.1%. The dollar strengthened and the yen tumbled.

The decision is one of the biggest setbacks in court for Trump amid a wave of lawsuits over executive orders testing the limits of presidential power. Others are challenging Trump’s mass firings of federal workers, restrictions on birthright citizenship and efforts to slash federal spending already approved by Congress.

The judges rejected the government’s argument that Trump had authority to unilaterally issue tariffs under a law intended to address financial transactions during national emergencies. The ruling was a so-called summary judgment, meaning a final victory for the plaintiffs in lower court without the need for a trial.

Trump’s executive orders invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the sweeping global tariffs. The law grants the president authority over a variety of financial transactions during certain emergencies, typically with sanctions. 

The president cited the U.S. trade deficits and drug trafficking at the U.S. border as national emergencies that allowed him to invoke the law. The judges said Trump’s lawyers had stated during court hearings that the intention was to “pressure” other nations into striking better deals.

“The government’s ‘pressure’ argument effectively concedes that the direct effect of the country-specific tariffs is simply to burden the countries they target,” wrote the panel, which includes one judge appointed by Trump, one by Barack Obama and one by Ronald Reagan.

Global markets

Global markets have fluctuated wildly since Trump announced the so-called reciprocal levies in a sweeping executive order on April 2. Since then, trillions of dollars in market value have been shed and regained amid weeks of delays, reversals and announcements about potential trade deals, particularly with China.

In response to the latest court ruling, White House spokesman Kush Desai said “it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.”

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” Desai said in a statement. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.”

Emergency law

Trump has said he was permitted to use the emergency law to implement tariffs because the nation’s “large and persistent” annual trade deficits across the globe constituted “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security and the economy.

The panel of judges concluded that Trump’s initial executive order announcing global tariffs and subsequent order dealing additional levies on countries that retaliated both exceeded the president’s authority under the emergency law. A third executive order, hitting Mexico and Canada with tariffs over concerns about drug trafficking, were deemed to be illegal by the court because those levies do not ultimately attempt to address the trafficking problem.

A complaint brought by a conservative legal advocacy group on behalf of small businesses alleged Trump is misusing the law, essentially basing his tariffs on a bogus emergency. The Liberty Justice Center said the U.S. trade deficits are “neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat.” Even if it were, the group said, the emergency law doesn’t allow a president to impose across-the-board tariffs.

The Democrat-led states alleged the tariffs amount to a massive tax on American consumers and infringe on the authority of Congress. The states also challenged Trump’s tariffs on Mexico and Canada, which cite the same emergency law based on claims about cartel activity and drug trafficking.

Drug trafficking

The states alleged that the broad nature of Trump’s tariffs undercut his claims about the purported emergency because they don’t target goods or services connected in any way to drug trafficking.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul hailed the ruling on social media.

The U.S. trade court is part of the nation’s federal court system and was created by Congress to handle specialized disputes around trade, including tariffs. Decisions are appealed on the same track as rulings from district courts, meaning a challenge by Trump would go to a federal appeals court and then the U.S. Supreme Court. As with other federal courts, the judges are appointed by sitting presidents.

Republicans in Congress have advanced legislation that would give the president broad authority to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs, but concern about the impact of Trump’s widespread levies is expected to limit the appetite for moving that measure now.

‘Second-guessing’

The Trump administration argued in court filings that the plaintiffs are improperly questioning his executive orders, “inviting judicial second-guessing of the president’s judgment.” 

The government had asked the panel of judges to issue only a narrow ruling if they were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but the court concluded that wasn’t possible given the nature of the tariffs.

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged tariff orders are unlawful as to plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the panel said.

The court said it didn’t need to weigh in on the plaintiffs’ argument that Trump had declared a false national emergency, saying that argument is moot for now because the president had used the law improperly regardless.

New York Attorney General Letitia James praised the ruling in a statement.

“These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue,” James said.

The cases are V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, 25-cv-00066, and Oregon v. Trump, 25-cv-00077, U.S. Court of International Trade (Manhattan).