In the case of Fidelity Union Trust Co. et al., Executors, v. Field (1940), the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could tax a trust established by a non-resident where the only connection to that state was through an executor who resided there. The court ruled in favor of Fidelity Union Trust Co., stating that New Jersey did not have jurisdiction to impose inheritance taxes on intangible personal property held in trust for beneficiaries residing outside of its borders when all administration activities occurred elsewhere and no assets were located within its boundaries. This decision reinforced principles related to due process and interstate commerce, emphasizing that states cannot levy taxes on entities or transactions lacking substantial connections with their jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for Fidelity Union Trust Co. et al., Executors, v. Field, Justice Roberts argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding testamentary trusts and their tax treatment. He contended that under previous rulings, the value of such a trust should be included in gross estate only to extent of its present worth at time of death; any subsequent appreciation should not be subject to taxation as part of decedent’s estate. The majority's ruling would result in double taxation: once on initial transfer into trust and again upon realization by beneficiaries - an outcome he believed Congress did not intend when drafting relevant legislation. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation that right reserved by decedent to change beneficiaries equated to possession or enjoyment of property – it merely allowed him control over disposition but didn’t grant actual use or benefit from assets during his lifetime.