In the case of Missouri v. Ross, Trustee, et al., 1936, the state of Missouri sought to tax a trust that was established in Massachusetts but held bonds from a corporation based in Missouri. The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Missouri stating that it did not have jurisdiction over property located outside its borders and thus could not impose taxes on such properties. This decision upheld an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court which stated that states cannot tax personal property unless it is physically present within their boundaries or owned by residents therein. The court further clarified this principle by asserting that intangible assets like stocks and bonds are considered to be located at their owner's domicile rather than where they were issued or where their issuer resides.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Missouri v. Ross, Trustee et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on intangible property was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the Supreme Court. The dissent emphasized that such a tax should not be imposed if it interferes with interstate commerce or discriminates against out-of-state businesses, as this would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. They contended that allowing states to impose taxes on intangibles could lead to multiple taxation and discourage investment across state lines, which would ultimately harm national economic unity and growth. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of legal precedent regarding taxation powers under federalism principles.