The U.S. Supreme Court case General Box Co. v. United States in 1955 revolved around the issue of whether a corporation could deduct from its income tax, as ordinary and necessary business expenses, payments made to another company for services rendered by the latter's employees under an agreement between the two companies. The court ruled that such payments were not deductible because they constituted dividends rather than ordinary and necessary business expenses. General Box Company had entered into an agreement with Eureka Specialty Printing Company where it would pay Eureka for services provided by their employees but these payments were based on profits earned by General Box Company rather than actual costs incurred by Eureka Specialty Printing Company. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) argued that these payments should be treated as dividends paid out to shareholders of a corporation instead of being considered as regular business expenses which can be deducted from taxable income. In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with IRS’s interpretation and held that such profit-based compensation arrangements do not qualify for deduction under federal tax law since they are more akin to dividend distributions among corporate shareholders rather than payment for services rendered.

In the dissenting opinion for General Box Co. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction under Section 3 of the Clayton Act was incorrect due to an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes price discrimination. The dissenting justices believed that this section should only apply when there is clear evidence of harm or potential harm to competition, which they did not see in this case. They also disagreed with the majority's view on meeting competition defense and contended that it should be applicable even if a seller does not know whether their competitor’s lower prices are discriminatory or not. Furthermore, they expressed concern about how such an expansive reading could potentially criminalize normal competitive behavior and create uncertainty for businesses trying to comply with antitrust laws.