In the case of Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1929, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could tax an out-of-state trust company for managing properties within its jurisdiction. The Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore argued that it should not be subject to taxation by Virginia as it did not have any physical presence in the state. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that although there was no physical presence, their activities were substantial enough to warrant taxation under due process clause considerations. This decision set a precedent for future cases involving interstate commerce and taxation issues.

In the dissenting opinion for SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY OF BALTIMORE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Justice Holmes argued that Virginia's taxation of intangible property held by a Maryland trust company was unconstitutional. He contended that the state had no jurisdiction over such property because it was not physically present within its borders and therefore could not be subject to its taxing power. The majority ruling allowed states to tax intangibles based on their owner’s domicile, but Holmes disagreed with this interpretation of the law. He believed it violated principles of interstate comity and fairness in taxation, as well as infringing upon federal authority over interstate commerce. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential double-taxation issues arising from multiple states claiming taxing rights over the same assets based on different criteria (such as location of management versus owner’s residence).