Gilbert & Secor v. United States was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government had the right to tax the income of a corporation. The case was brought by Gilbert & Secor, a corporation that had been formed to build a railroad in the state of New York. The corporation argued that the federal government did not have the authority to tax its income, as it was not a natural person and thus not subject to the same taxation laws as individuals. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, finding that the federal government did indeed have the right to tax the income of corporations. The Court reasoned that the power to tax was an inherent power of the federal government, and that the power to tax corporations was necessary to ensure that the government could raise the revenue necessary to carry out its duties. The Court also noted that the power to tax corporations was necessary to prevent corporations from becoming too powerful and dominating the economy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the right to tax the income of corporations, and that this power was necessary to ensure that the government could raise the revenue necessary to carry out its duties. The decision established a precedent that has been followed ever since, and has been used to justify the taxation of corporate income.

In Gilbert & Secor v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced against the government. The majority opinion held that it could not, as contracts made with the government are subject to congressional approval and this particular contract had not been approved by Congress. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that such a decision would lead to an absurd result in which any party entering into a contract with the federal government would have no assurance of its enforceability unless Congress specifically approves it. He further noted that if such were true then all private contracts entered into prior to 1867 should also be invalidated due to lack of congressional approval; he believed this outcome was untenable and unjustified given existing precedent on similar matters at both state and federal levels. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that since there is no explicit language in either statute or constitutional law prohibiting enforcement of private contracts against the federal government without specific Congressional authorization, they should remain valid until otherwise specified by law or overturned through judicial review