In the case of Robinette v. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1942, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal income tax law. The petitioner, Mrs. Robinette had received an annual payment from her ex-husband as part of their divorce settlement agreement which she claimed was not taxable under section 22(k) of the Revenue Act because it was for her support and maintenance rather than being a property settlement or alimony payment. However, the respondent - Commissioner Guy T. Helvering argued that these payments were indeed taxable under this act since they were made due to marital obligations and thus constituted "periodic payments". The court sided with Mr.Helvering's interpretation stating that such periodic payments are considered gross income regardless if they're intended for support or otherwise unless specifically excluded by statute.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinette v. Helvering, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of tax law and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that Congress intended to allow taxpayers to deduct losses from their gross income only when those losses were sustained during the taxable year and not merely recognized in that period. The taxpayer in this case had sold stock at a loss but did not claim it until years later, which according to Justice Murphy, is contrary to what Congress intended with its legislation on capital gains and losses. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for making legislative judgments about tax policy rather than interpreting existing laws as they should be doing as judges.