In the case of B. Altman & Co. v. United States in 1911, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding import duties on merchandise purchased abroad by American citizens for personal use and then brought back into the country. The court held that such goods were not exempt from customs duties under existing tariff laws, even if they had been used by their owners while overseas before being re-imported to America. The plaintiff, B.Altman & Co., was a department store which had sent employees to Europe to buy items for its inventory; these purchases were assessed with import taxes upon return to the US. The company argued that since these goods were bought and used abroad (even though it was for commercial purposes), they should be considered as "personal effects" and thus exempt from duty fees according to tariff laws at that time. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, disagreed with this interpretation of law stating that Congress intended only those articles worn or carried about one's person during travel are free from tax when returning home - not items acquired solely for resale regardless of whether they have been put into service or not while still overseas.

In the dissenting opinion for B. Altman & Co. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Harlan and Day, argued that the Tariff Act of 1897 should not be interpreted to include works of art more than twenty years old as free from import duties. The majority had ruled that these items were exempt under a clause referring to "antiques," but the dissenters contended this was an incorrect interpretation of legislative intent. They believed Congress intended only to exempt objects with historical or archaeological value rather than all artwork over two decades old, which could still have significant commercial value despite their age.