In the case of Smyth, Executor v. United States in 1937, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving estate taxes and gifts made by a deceased individual prior to their death. The decedent had transferred bonds to his children without receiving any payment or consideration in return. After his death, these transfers were included in the gross estate for tax purposes under Section 302(c) of the Revenue Act of 1926 which stated that all property transferred as gift within two years before death should be included unless it could be shown that such transfer was not made "in contemplation of death". The executor argued this inclusion was incorrect because there wasn't sufficient evidence proving they were made 'in contemplation' of impending demise. The court held that even if there is no explicit proof showing an imminent expectation of death at time when gifts are given, other circumstances can suggest such intent - like serious illness or old age. It further clarified that 'contemplation' doesn’t necessarily mean immediate expectancy but rather general awareness arising from frailty or illness making mortality more apparent than usual. Therefore, despite lack of direct evidence indicating anticipation about nearness to end life while gifting assets away; indirect factors can still make them taxable as part your estate after you pass away.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Smyth, Executor v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on an inheritance was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this tax violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against taking private property for public use without just compensation. They contended that an inheritance is not income but rather a transfer of wealth from one person to another and therefore should not be subject to taxation as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they asserted that if such transfers were considered taxable income, it would open up other non-income transactions like gifts or loans for potential taxation which could lead to excessive governmental intrusion into personal finances and potentially violate individual rights.