The U.S. Supreme Court case Anderson, Collector of Internal Revenue v. The Forty-Two Broadway Company in 1915 revolved around the issue of taxation and property rights. The Forty-Two Broadway Company owned a building that was leased to various tenants, with some leases stipulating that the tenant would pay any taxes levied on the premises during their tenancy period. When Congress enacted an income tax law in 1913 which included real estate as taxable income, Anderson - acting as Collector of Internal Revenue - sought to collect these taxes from both the company and its tenants who had such lease agreements. The company argued this constituted double taxation and took legal action against it. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anderson stating that there was no double taxation since each party (the landlord and tenant) were taxed for different interests; one for ownership interest (company), while others for leasing interest (tenants). Therefore, they held that taxing both parties did not violate constitutional principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. The Forty-Two Broadway Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of tax law. He argued that a corporation should not be taxed on its income derived from real estate in another state if it does not have any physical presence or operations there. According to him, such taxation would violate the principle of territoriality and could lead to double taxation as both states might claim taxing rights over the same income. Furthermore, he contended that this kind of extraterritorial application of tax laws was inconsistent with constitutional principles and previous court rulings which emphasized respect for state sovereignty and jurisdictional limits. Therefore, he believed that only those corporations which had an actual business connection or nexus with a particular state should be subject to its taxes.