In the 1941 case Pence v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to tax evasion and fraud. The defendant, Mr. Pence, was convicted of attempting to defraud the government by not including certain income in his tax returns for several years. He appealed this conviction arguing that he had been charged with multiple offenses for what should have been considered one continuous act of evasion over several years (a single offense). However, the Supreme Court disagreed with his interpretation and upheld his conviction on all counts. They concluded that each fraudulent return constituted a separate offense under applicable law because they were filed separately in different years - thus rejecting Pence's argument about continuous conduct being treated as one crime.

In the dissenting opinion for Pence v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Section 9(a) of the Trading with Enemy Act. He contended that this section should not be used to justify government seizure and sale of property owned by an American citizen who had been residing in Japan during World War II. The justice believed that such interpretation would lead to unjust punishment without trial or conviction, which contradicts fundamental principles of American jurisprudence and constitutional law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of power by administrative agencies if they were allowed to seize properties based on mere suspicion or unproven allegations against citizens living abroad under enemy control due to circumstances beyond their control.