In the case of Jordan, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Roche in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax assessment made by an internal revenue collector could be contested through a lawsuit before it had been paid. The plaintiff, Mr. Roche, argued that he should not have to pay an allegedly incorrect tax assessment and then sue for its recovery; instead he sought to challenge it directly in court prior to payment. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that under existing law at that time (the Act of July 13th 1866), taxpayers were required first to pay their assessed taxes and only afterwards could they initiate legal proceedings if they believed those assessments were erroneous or illegal. This decision reinforced the principle known as "pay first litigate later" which is still largely applicable today in federal taxation matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Jordan, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Roche, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the tax law in question was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that a more accurate reading would have allowed for a broader understanding and application of what constitutes "income." They disagreed with the majority's view that only realized gains could be taxed as income, arguing instead that unrealized appreciation should also be considered taxable income under certain circumstances. This disagreement stemmed from differing interpretations of how to define 'gains' or 'profits.' The minority felt this definition should not be limited to cash received but include increases in value even if they are not yet converted into money. Therefore, they held an opposing viewpoint on whether Mr. Roche owed taxes on his stock dividends which had increased in value but were not sold during the relevant tax year.