The U.S. Supreme Court case Curry v. McCanless (1938) revolved around the issue of double taxation by two states, Alabama and Tennessee, on intangible personal property held in trust for a beneficiary residing in another state. The court ruled that both states could not tax the same income derived from this trust as it would constitute double taxation which is prohibited under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The decision clarified that only one state has jurisdiction over such trusts - either where it was created or where its trustee resides - and can impose taxes accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion for Curry v. McCanless, Justice Benjamin Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision that Alabama could tax intangible property held in a trust located outside of its borders. He argued that this ruling violated principles of due process and federalism by allowing states to extend their taxing power beyond their geographical boundaries. According to him, only the state where such property is physically located should have jurisdiction over it for taxation purposes. Furthermore, he contended that if every state were allowed to tax all intangible assets owned by its residents regardless of where those assets are situated, there would be an unfair risk of multiple taxation on the same property which would discourage investment and economic growth.