In the case of Helvering v. Mitchell, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Commissioner Guy T. Helvering, representing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The court held that a taxpayer could be subjected to both civil and criminal penalties for tax evasion without violating the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause. Frederick B. Mitchell had been acquitted on charges of tax evasion but was later required by IRS to pay a 50% fraud penalty based on his income tax return from 1929 which he contested as it amounted to double punishment for same offense after his acquittal in criminal proceedings. However, Justice Benjamin Cardozo argued that one proceeding was remedial and served to recover funds owed while other was punitive aiming at punishing unlawful behavior hence they were not identical offenses under law thus no violation of Double Jeopardy Clause occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Mitchell, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a second proceeding against Mitchell for tax fraud after he had already been acquitted in criminal court. He argued that this constituted double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The justice contended that both proceedings were essentially punitive and therefore should be considered as one action under law. Furthermore, he asserted that allowing such multiple prosecutions would undermine public confidence in legal institutions and could lead to abuses of power by government officials seeking to punish individuals they deemed undesirable or dangerous. Thus, according to Justice McReynolds' dissenting view, once an individual has been tried and acquitted on charges related to a specific act or transaction, no further legal actions based on those same facts should be permitted.