In the case of The Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County, Montana et al., 1927, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yellowstone County. The bank had challenged a tax assessment on its shares by arguing that it was unconstitutional because it included federal bonds owned by the bank which were exempt from state taxation under federal law. However, the court held that while individual shareholders could deduct their proportionate share of any non-taxable assets (like government bonds) when calculating their personal taxes, this did not apply to banks as corporate entities for purposes of assessing property taxes on shares. Therefore, even though some portion of a bank's assets might be invested in tax-exempt securities like government bonds; those investments are still part and parcel with all other assets used to generate income for shareholders and thus can be considered when determining overall value or worth for taxation purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for The Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County of Montana, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles established by the court. He contended that a national bank should not be exempt from paying taxes on its real estate holdings in a state where it operates, as this contradicts both federal law and precedent set by earlier Supreme Court decisions. According to Justice Stone, there is no legal basis for distinguishing between taxation on personal property owned by banks (which had been previously upheld) and taxation on real estate owned by them. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such an exemption would unfairly privilege national banks over other businesses or individuals who must pay these taxes.