In the case of Benjamin F. Flanders v. John P. Tweed, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the United States Treasury Department had the authority to collect taxes from a private individual. The case arose when Flanders, the Deputy General Agent of the Treasury Department, attempted to collect taxes from Tweed, a private individual. Tweed argued that the Treasury Department did not have the authority to collect taxes from him, as he was not a government employee. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Flanders, finding that the Treasury Department did indeed have the authority to collect taxes from private individuals. The Court reasoned that the Treasury Department was authorized to collect taxes from any person who was liable for them, regardless of whether they were a government employee or not. The Court also noted that the Treasury Department was authorized to collect taxes from private individuals in order to ensure that the government was able to meet its financial obligations. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the Treasury Department had the authority to collect taxes from private individuals, and that Tweed was liable for the taxes that Flanders was attempting to collect.

In the case of Benjamin F. Flanders v. John P. Tweed, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a federal statute that allowed for seizure and sale of property to satisfy unpaid taxes applied retroactively to debts incurred prior to its enactment. The majority opinion held that it did apply retroactively, while Justice Field dissented on the grounds that such an application would be unconstitutional as it violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by depriving individuals of their property without notice or opportunity for hearing before a court beforehand. He argued further that Congress had no authority to pass laws which could operate retrospectively in this way and thus violate constitutional protections against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; he concluded his dissent by stating “the power claimed is one which has never been exercised by any government known among men” and should not be recognized here either.