In the case of Miles v. Graham, 1924, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to tax law and constitutional rights. The plaintiff was a former collector for the Internal Revenue Service who sued Graham for unpaid taxes on income derived from property seized during Prohibition under National Prohibition Act. The defendant argued that this constituted double jeopardy as he had already been fined in criminal court for illegal possession of liquor which led to seizure of his property. He contended that being taxed on income from confiscated property was essentially another penalty for same offense thus violating Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Graham, agreeing that taxing him on income derived from confiscated property did indeed constitute double jeopardy since it amounted to an additional punishment beyond what had been imposed in criminal court. This decision clarified interpretation around taxation laws and their intersection with constitutional protections against multiple punishments for same crime.

In the dissenting opinion for Miles v. Graham, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a tax deduction on stock dividends that were reinvested in property. He argued that this interpretation of the law was incorrect and could potentially lead to significant revenue losses for the government. According to him, allowing such deductions would essentially mean exempting certain types of income from taxation altogether, which he believed was not consistent with legislative intent or sound policy principles. Furthermore, he pointed out that there had been no previous cases where similar deductions had been allowed under comparable circumstances and warned against setting a precedent that might encourage further attempts at tax evasion.