In the case of Clarke, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Company in 1929, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax assessment by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue against Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Company was valid. The brewing company had been assessed for additional taxes based on its production and sale of beer during Prohibition under the Volstead Act. However, it argued that this act did not apply to them as they were producing non-intoxicating beer (containing less than 0.5% alcohol). The court ruled in favor of Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Company stating that their product fell within an exception to prohibition laws because it contained such a low amount of alcohol content and therefore should not be subject to taxation under these specific circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Company, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a refund of taxes paid under an unconstitutional law was incorrect. He contended that while it is true that no one should be subjected to pay a tax which he does not owe and which Congress has no power to impose, this principle does not mean taxpayers can recover payments voluntarily made in response to an unconstitutional statute after its invalidity has been established. According to him, there must be some limit on such recovery due to practical considerations related with public finance stability and administrative efficiency. He further stated that if every payment of tax could be recovered because some rule of law applicable thereto was later overruled or declared invalid by courts, financial chaos might follow and fiscal operations would become near impossible as they are largely based on continuity and predictability.