In Stotesbury v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a U.S. citizen could be tried for crimes committed while serving as an officer in a foreign army. The appellant, Mr. Stotesbury, had been convicted of embezzlement and larceny by a military commission while he was serving as an officer in the Egyptian Army under British command during World War I. He argued that his trial violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment because it took place outside of the jurisdiction where he allegedly committed these crimes. The court ruled against him on two grounds: first, they found that since Egypt was effectively controlled by Britain at this time and Britain had given its consent for American authorities to try their own citizens there; secondly, they held that even if this were not true - i.e., if Egypt were considered sovereign territory - then still Mr.Stotesbury would have no case because according to international law any country has jurisdiction over offenses committed within its borders regardless of who commits them or what nationality they are.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stotesbury v. United States argued that the court erred in its interpretation and application of tax law, specifically regarding deductions for losses incurred during business operations. The dissent contended that a loss should be deductible when it is actually sustained or experienced, not merely when it is discovered or recognized by an individual taxpayer. This perspective emphasized a more practical approach to taxation, arguing for recognition of economic realities over strict adherence to accounting principles or timing considerations. Furthermore, the dissent expressed concern about potential inequities resulting from different treatment of taxpayers based on their knowledge and understanding of complex tax laws and regulations.