In the case of Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1932), the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues related to tax law and property rights. The petitioner, Mr. Lang, had purchased a piece of land in 1919 which he later sold in 1920 at a profit. However, he argued that this should not be considered as taxable income because it was capital gain from the sale of real estate rather than ordinary income subject to federal taxes under existing laws at that time. The court disagreed with his argument stating that profits derived from sales transactions were indeed taxable regardless if they were obtained through regular business operations or one-time events like selling off assets such as real estate properties. It also clarified that any increase in value between purchase and sale dates is considered part of gross income for taxation purposes. This decision reinforced the government's authority to impose taxes on all forms of incomes including those derived from occasional activities outside an individual’s primary source/scope of earnings.

In the dissenting opinion for Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Justice Stone argued that the majority's interpretation of "income" under Section 22(a) was too narrow and inconsistent with previous court decisions. He contended that income should be understood as any gain derived from capital or labor, regardless of its form or source. In this case, he believed that Mr. Lang's receipt of stock dividends represented a clear economic benefit and thus constituted taxable income under federal law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on double taxation; arguing it is not inherently illegal or unjustifiable in all circumstances but rather depends on specific statutory provisions and legislative intent behind them.