In the 1932 case of George Moore Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Rose, Collector of Internal Revenue, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rose, upholding a tax assessment against George Moore Ice Cream Co. The company had argued that it was exempt from certain taxes under Section 234(a)(1) and (5) of the Revenue Act due to its status as a corporation organized for profit but not having any capital stock issued. However, the court found that despite not issuing any capital stock, George Moore Ice Cream Co.'s shareholders held certificates entitling them to dividends based on profits - effectively functioning like traditional stocks - thus making them liable for taxation under existing laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of George Moore Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Rose, Collector of Internal Revenue argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad and not consistent with the intent of Congress when it enacted the tax statute in question. The dissent contended that ice cream should not be considered a "manufactured product" for purposes of taxation under this particular law because its production does not involve significant transformation or alteration from its raw materials (milk, sugar, etc.). They believed that to classify ice cream as such would open up an array of other simple processed foods to being taxed as manufactured products which they felt was clearly outside the scope intended by lawmakers. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to administrative practice in interpreting statutory language and thought more emphasis should have been placed on legislative history and purpose.