In Berman v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for tax evasion, rejecting the defendant's argument that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine government witnesses about their calculations of his income. The court ruled that it is not necessary for the prosecution in a tax evasion case to prove its case beyond all possible doubt, but only beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, they stated that while defendants have a right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them under the Sixth Amendment, this does not mean they are entitled to cross-examine every person who has provided information used by those witnesses in forming their opinions or conclusions.

In the dissenting opinion for Berman v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on wholesale liquor dealers was unconstitutional. He contended that Congress did not have the power to impose such a tax under the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition and returned control of alcohol regulation to individual states. According to Justice McReynolds, this amendment only granted Congress authority over importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors; it did not extend their powers into areas traditionally controlled by state governments like internal commerce or taxation within borders. Therefore, he believed that imposing federal taxes on intrastate activities related to alcohol infringed upon states' rights and violated principles of federalism enshrined in Constitution.