The U.S. Supreme Court case Taber, Treasurer of Payne County v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 1936 revolved around the issue of taxation on oil and gas leases located in former Indian reservations within Oklahoma state boundaries. The State attempted to impose a gross production tax on these leases, which were held by non-Indian entities such as the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company (ITIO). ITIO argued that under federal law, these lands were exempt from state taxation due to their status as former tribal lands. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ITIO stating that Congress had not explicitly given states permission to levy taxes on mineral resources extracted from these specific lands; therefore, they remained immune from state taxation until Congress decided otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Taber, Treasurer of Payne County v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles regarding tax laws. He contended that Oklahoma's gross production tax on oil should be considered a property tax rather than an excise tax, as it is levied against the value of oil at the time it is severed from soil - which he viewed as a characteristic of property taxes. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that this case was different from prior cases involving similar issues because those involved leases while this one did not; to him, such distinction had no bearing on whether or not a state could impose its taxing power. Lastly, Justice Stone expressed concern over potential negative implications for states' rights to levy taxes within their borders if they were restricted by federal law in cases like these.