In the case of Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ohio Leather Co., 1942, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a corporation could deduct from its gross income an amount representing depreciation on property used in its business but owned by its stockholders. The Ohio Leather Company had been renting buildings and equipment from their majority shareholders at a rate that included both rent and depreciation costs. The company then attempted to claim this combined cost as a deductible expense for tax purposes. However, the IRS argued that only actual rental payments were deductible while amounts allocated for depreciation should be disallowed since they did not represent an actual loss to the company itself. The court ruled in favor of Helvering (the IRS), stating that under existing tax law, deductions are allowed only for losses sustained during taxable years; thus, no deduction can be made unless there is clear provision within law permitting it. As such, because Ohio Leather Co.'s claimed "loss" through paying shareholder's property depreciation wasn't recognized by any specific legal provision as being allowable as a deduction against corporate income taxes due - it was therefore disallowed.

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Ohio Leather Co., Justice Roberts argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an overreach by Congress. He contended that, under the Revenue Act of 1936, a corporation could only be taxed on undistributed profits if it had been formed or availed for the purpose of avoiding income tax by its shareholders. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest such intent by Ohio Leather Company; hence taxing them would be unjustified. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "undistributed net income," arguing that it should not include unrealized appreciation in value since this does not constitute actual profit until realized through sale or exchange. Therefore, according to him, including such unrealized appreciation in value within taxable income is contrary to both legal precedent and common understanding of what constitutes 'income'.