In the 1924 case of Benjamin W. Morse v. The United States, Morse was a stockholder in a corporation that had declared bankruptcy and he sought to recover taxes paid by the corporation prior to its dissolution. He argued that as one of the last remaining assets of the company, he should be entitled to any tax refunds due from overpayment during profitable years when it was still operational. However, his claim was rejected by both lower courts and eventually reached Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against Morse on grounds that under U.S law at this time (Revenue Act), only individuals or corporations could file for tax refund claims - not shareholders acting on behalf of bankrupt companies. Furthermore, they stated there were no provisions within this act allowing such claims even if all other corporate assets had been exhausted through bankruptcy proceedings. This decision clarified who is legally allowed to make tax refund claims following corporate insolvency: namely those entities recognized as taxpayers themselves rather than their individual members or shareholders.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Benjamin W. Morse v. The United States, Justice Holmes argued that a person should not be convicted based on their intent to defraud without concrete evidence proving such intent beyond reasonable doubt. He believed that mere suspicion or assumption was insufficient grounds for conviction and maintained that there must be clear proof of fraudulent intention in order to justify legal punishment. Furthermore, he contended that it was unjust to convict someone solely because they had made a false statement; rather, it needed to be demonstrated conclusively how this falsehood directly resulted in an attempt at deception or fraudulence. In essence, his argument centered around upholding the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', emphasizing the need for substantial evidence before declaring guilt.