In the case of Roberts, Treasurer v. United States in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and government bonds. The state treasurer of Ohio had taxed federal bonds held by two banks within its jurisdiction. The banks contested this tax, arguing that it was unconstitutional as per the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity which holds that federal entities are immune from state taxes and vice versa. However, the State argued that these were not direct taxes but rather excise taxes based on corporate privileges granted by Ohio law to banking institutions operating within its borders. The Supreme Court sided with the United States Government (representing interests of federally chartered banks), ruling against Roberts (Ohio's treasurer). It upheld previous rulings stating that states cannot impose a tax directly upon property owned by or under contract with Federal authorities without consent from Congress - even if such property is held by private citizens or corporations like banks.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Roberts, Treasurer v. United States argued that the majority's decision to allow a tax exemption for federal bonds held by national banks was incorrect. The dissenters believed this interpretation went against the intention of Congress when it established these types of bonds and gave them certain privileges. They maintained that such an interpretation could lead to potential abuse as banks might hoard these bonds due to their tax-exempt status, which would then limit their availability for public use. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such exemptions would unfairly burden state treasuries while benefiting national ones. This view also emphasized on maintaining a balance between federal and state powers, arguing that granting too many advantages to one over another could disrupt this equilibrium.