In the Griswold v. Helvering case of 1933, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal estate tax could be levied on life insurance proceeds paid out upon death. The executors of Edward Acheson's estate argued that such taxation violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking property without due process of law. They contended that since Mr. Acheson had no control over his life insurance policy once he passed away, it should not be considered part of his gross estate for tax purposes. The court disagreed with this argument and upheld the constitutionality of including life insurance in an individual’s taxable estate under Section 302(g) of Revenue Act (1926). It reasoned that while Mr. Acheson may have lost control over his policy at death, during his lifetime he held significant rights and privileges associated with it - including naming beneficiaries and borrowing against its value - which made it part of his gross assets subject to taxation after death. This decision established important precedent regarding how life insurance policies are treated for federal tax purposes.

In the Griswold v. Helvering case, a dissenting opinion was expressed by Justice McReynolds. He disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an income tax on gifts as constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. In his view, this interpretation of the amendment was too broad and not in line with its original intent or historical context. The Sixteenth Amendment, he argued, was meant to allow Congress to impose direct taxes on incomes without apportionment among states based on population; it did not grant power to tax transfers of property through gift-giving which is essentially a state concern rather than federal one. Therefore, he believed that such taxation overstepped federal authority and infringed upon states' rights.