In the case of Helvering v. Fuller, 1939, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a taxpayer could deduct losses from their income tax that were incurred due to selling property at a price lower than its fair market value during an economic depression. The respondent, Mr. Fuller had sold properties for less than their cost and claimed these as deductible losses in his income tax return. However, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Guy Tresvant Helvering argued that such deductions should not be allowed since they resulted from voluntary sales rather than forced liquidation or foreclosure. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Fuller stating that he was entitled to claim those deductions because there is no provision under law which disallows deduction on account of depreciation in values due to general economic conditions even if it's caused by a severe depression like the one experienced during this period (Great Depression). This decision set precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances where taxpayers may have suffered financial loss due to broader economic factors beyond their control.

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Fuller, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to tax a gift made by a husband to his wife as income. He argued that this interpretation of the law was inconsistent with its original intent and previous court rulings on similar matters. According to him, gifts should not be considered taxable income because they are voluntary transfers of property without any expectation of receiving something in return - unlike salaries or wages which are received in exchange for services rendered. Furthermore, he pointed out that if all gifts were taxed as income then it would lead to absurd results such as taxing presents given at Christmas or birthdays. Therefore, he believed that the majority's ruling was an overreach and misinterpretation of federal tax laws.