In the case of Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bashford in 1937, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a tax dispute involving estate taxes and life insurance policies. The respondent, Mrs. Bashford was the beneficiary of two life insurance policies taken out by her late husband who had paid all premiums without any contribution from his wife. After his death, she received proceeds from these policies which were included in gross estate for federal taxation purposes under Section 302(g) of the Revenue Act 1926 by petitioner Mr.Helvering as Commissioner Of Internal Revenue . Mrs.Bashford contested this inclusion arguing that they should not be considered part of her husband's gross estate because he did not retain any incidents of ownership over them at time of his death. The court held that since Mr.Bashford retained no beneficial interest or control over disposition or enjoyment thereof during lifetime nor power to alter beneficiaries after issuance ,the proceeds could not be deemed part 'of' or 'in' his gross estate within meaning and intent behind section 302(g). Therefore,the decision was reversed with costs against government.

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Bashford, it was argued that the majority's decision to tax a widow on her deceased husband's estate income was unjust and contrary to established legal principles. The dissent asserted that under common law, an individual cannot be taxed on income they did not personally earn or control. It further contended that this principle should extend to widows who inherit their spouse’s estate but do not have any direct involvement in generating its income. The dissent also criticized the majority for interpreting tax laws too broadly and warned against setting a dangerous precedent where individuals could be taxed based on mere possession of property rather than actual receipt of income.