In the case of Gunning v. Cooley, 1929, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over inheritance tax. The plaintiff was an executor of an estate who argued that certain securities should not be included in calculating the value of the deceased's gross estate for taxation purposes because they were located outside Massachusetts where he resided at his death. However, both lower courts had ruled against him and included these assets in their calculations which increased the amount due as inheritance tax. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions on appeal stating that it is within a state's rights to levy taxes on all property owned by its residents regardless of where it is physically located. It also clarified that this does not constitute double taxation even if another jurisdiction has already taxed those same assets since each state or country has independent taxing authority. This ruling established important precedent regarding how states can calculate and impose inheritance taxes on estates involving out-of-state properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Gunning v. Cooley, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on intangible property held outside of Massachusetts by a resident of Massachusetts violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling essentially allowed states to impose taxes on properties located in other jurisdictions, which they believed was unconstitutional. They further asserted that such taxation could lead to double taxation if another state also decided to tax those same assets. This, they claimed, would be unfair and burdensome for taxpayers who have their properties scattered across different states or countries.