In the Department of Treasury of Indiana et al. v. Wood Preserving Corporation case in 1940, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding taxation and interstate commerce. The Wood Preserving Corporation, an Illinois-based company that treated lumber with preservatives before selling it to customers across state lines, was assessed by Indiana for gross income tax based on sales made within the state. The corporation argued this violated their rights under the Commerce Clause as they were engaged in interstate commerce which should be free from such taxes imposed by individual states. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld Indiana's right to levy these taxes. They reasoned that while goods may have been destined for out-of-state locations, all transactions occurred within Indiana's borders where both buyer and seller were present at time of sale; thus constituting intrastate rather than interstate commerce subject to local taxation laws. This ruling affirmed states' authority over economic activities occurring within their boundaries even when those activities involved goods ultimately bound for other states - reinforcing principles of federalism inherent in U.S Constitution.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Department of Treasury of Indiana et al. v. Wood Preserving Corporation argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of fairness. The dissenters believed that the state had no right to tax a corporation for property located outside its jurisdiction, as it goes against interstate commerce laws and infringes on federal authority over such matters. They also pointed out that this ruling could lead to multiple taxation by different states on the same property, which would be unfair and burdensome for businesses operating across state lines. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "use" in relation to taxation, arguing that mere storage or possession does not constitute use under existing law.