In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fink et al., 1986, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether payments made by an employer to buy back stock options from a departing employee should be considered as ordinary income or capital gain for tax purposes. The court held that such payments are taxable as ordinary income and not capital gains. This decision was based on the fact that these payments were essentially compensation for services rendered by the employee during his employment period rather than proceeds from a sale of property (the stock option). Therefore, they fell under Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines gross income to include all forms of compensation for services performed. The ruling clarified how certain types of severance packages involving company stocks should be treated in terms of taxation.

In the dissenting opinion for Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fink, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 83(a) was incorrect and inconsistent with its legislative history. He contended that Congress intended to tax property transferred in connection with performance of services when it becomes substantially vested, not at a later date when restrictions are lifted. According to him, this is evident from the language used in Section 83(a), which states "property is taxable upon transfer" unless there's a substantial risk of forfeiture or restriction on sale or other disposition without significant risk of forfeiture. The majority’s decision allows taxpayers to avoid immediate taxation by imposing additional restrictions after receiving property rights - an outcome he believed Congress did not intend while drafting this law.