In the case of Arthur, Collector v. Pastor & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the federal government had the authority to impose a tax on the income of a religious organization. The case arose when the Collector of Internal Revenue attempted to collect a tax on the income of the Church of the Holy Trinity, a religious organization in New York City. The church argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a penalty on the free exercise of religion, but rather a legitimate exercise of the government's power to tax. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied to all organizations regardless of their religious affiliation. The Court also held that the tax did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion. The Court reasoned that the tax was not intended to promote or inhibit any particular religion, but rather to raise revenue for the government. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the authority to impose a tax on the income of a religious organization. The Court reasoned that the tax was not a penalty on the free exercise of religion, and did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In the case of Arthur, Collector v. Pastor & Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not unconstitutional as long as it did not exceed $2 per gallon and applied equally to all persons engaged in distilling or importing such spirits into the United States. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had no authority to impose any taxes on distilled spirits at all under Article I of the Constitution because there is nothing within its text which grants them such power. He further argued that if Congress were allowed to do so then they would be able to pass laws imposing taxes upon almost anything else without limitation or restriction; thus allowing for an unlimited expansion of their powers beyond what is granted by Article I.