In the case of Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, Sheriff, 1929, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could impose a tax on goods that were stored in its territory but destined for export. The Surplus Trading Company had purchased tobacco from farmers in Kentucky and stored it there before exporting it overseas. However, the sheriff of Jefferson County levied taxes on this tobacco while it was still being held in storage within his jurisdiction. The company argued that these taxes violated their rights under both the Import-Export Clause and Commerce Clause of the Constitution as they interfered with interstate commerce by taxing goods intended for exportation. The court ruled against Surplus Trading Co., stating that states have authority to tax property within their borders unless explicitly prohibited by Congress or if such taxation discriminates against interstate commerce or impairs federal uniformity in matters pertaining to foreign trade. In this instance, since neither condition applied - no Congressional prohibition existed nor did Kentucky's taxation discriminate against interstate commerce or impair federal uniformity -the levy was deemed constitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, Sheriff, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign corporations doing business in Arkansas contradicted previous rulings of the Court. The dissent pointed out that this case involved a corporation chartered by Delaware and operating under federal law which should not be subject to state taxation without clear congressional authorization. It emphasized that such taxes could potentially interfere with interstate commerce and therefore violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Furthermore, it contended that allowing states to impose their own regulations on foreign corporations would create an inconsistent patchwork of laws across different jurisdictions, undermining national uniformity in corporate regulation.