In the 1942 case of Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Griffiths, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal income tax law. The respondent, Mrs. Griffiths had received dividends from her stock in two corporations and reported them as capital gains rather than ordinary income on her tax return for 1936. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that these dividends should be taxed as ordinary income under Section 115(g) of the Revenue Act which stated that certain distributions made by a corporation to its shareholders are taxable as dividends to the extent they are paid out of earnings or profits accumulated after February 28, 1913. The court held in favor of the commissioner stating that Congress intended for such distributions to be treated as dividend income regardless if it was not technically defined so by state law where corporate action took place (Delaware). Therefore, Mrs.Griffith's distribution was subject to taxation at regular rates instead being considered capital gain with lower rate.

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Griffiths, Justice Roberts argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 22(k) of the Revenue Act was incorrect. He believed that this section should not be interpreted to mean that a wife who receives alimony payments from her ex-husband must include these payments in her gross income for tax purposes. Instead, he contended that such an interpretation would result in double taxation because both parties involved - the husband and wife - would have to pay taxes on this same amount of money. Furthermore, Justice Roberts pointed out inconsistencies between Section 22(k) and other sections within the Revenue Act which further supported his argument against including alimony payments as part of a woman’s taxable income.