In the 1915 case Bullen v. State of Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, upholding a tax assessment on shares owned by non-resident shareholders in a domestic corporation. The plaintiff, Bullen, was a resident and citizen of New York who held stock in several corporations based out of Wisconsin. He argued that his property (the stocks) could not be taxed by Wisconsin as it was located outside its jurisdictional boundaries - he lived and worked entirely within New York. The court disagreed with this argument stating that while personal property is generally subject to taxation only at an owner's domicile unless it has acquired situs elsewhere for purposes of taxation; however, shares in corporations have such situs at the domicile or place where corporate business is carried on because they represent interest or ownership therein which can't exist independently from said corporation itself. Therefore, even though Bullen resided outside Wisconsin and conducted no business there himself personally; his investment into these companies gave him an economic presence within their home state making them taxable under local law despite any physical absence.

In the dissenting opinion for Bullen v. State of Wisconsin, Justice Holmes argued that the state's power to tax should not be used as a means to regulate or prohibit activities otherwise within its jurisdiction. He believed that this case was an example of such misuse, with Wisconsin imposing a prohibitive tax on foreign corporations doing business in the state but not owning property there. According to Holmes, this action violated both due process and equal protection clauses because it discriminated against out-of-state businesses without any rational basis related to their ability or willingness to pay taxes. Furthermore, he contended that while states have wide latitude in taxation matters under federal law, they cannot use these powers arbitrarily or unfairly without violating constitutional principles.