In Beidler v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving income tax law and its application to an inheritance. The petitioner, Mr. Beidler, had inherited money from his father's estate in 1905 but did not receive it until 1913 due to legal disputes over the will. When he received the funds, he was required by federal law to pay income tax on them for that year. He argued that this was unfair as he should have been taxed in 1905 when he technically became entitled to the money rather than in 1913 when he actually received it. The court disagreed with Beidler’s argument and upheld his obligation to pay taxes based on receipt of funds rather than entitlement date because there were no guarantees at time of death about how much would be left after settling debts or other obligations related with estate administration process which could take years before final distribution is made among heirs or beneficiaries under a will or trust agreement.

In the dissenting opinion for Beidler v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant should not be held liable for tax evasion because he had no control over his mother's estate from which he received income. He contended that under Illinois law, a life tenant (the person who has rights to an estate only during their lifetime) does not have absolute possession and control of property but merely receives its profits or income. Therefore, according to Holmes, since Beidler did not possess full ownership rights over his mother's estate and could not dispose of it as he wished, it was incorrect to consider him as having "received" any part of the corpus (principal amount) of the trust in question. Thus, taxing him on this basis would be unjustified.