In the case of United States v. Beuttas et al., Trading as B-W Construction Co., 1944, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over payment for construction work done by B-W Construction Company on behalf of the U.S. government during World War II. The company had been contracted to build housing facilities at an Army camp and was paid based on cost-plus-fixed-fee terms, which meant they were reimbursed for costs plus given a fixed profit margin. However, after completion of their work, they sought additional compensation claiming that certain unforeseen circumstances led them to incur extra expenses not covered in their original contract agreement. The court ruled against B-W Construction Company stating that under its contract it assumed all risks associated with completing the project within budget unless explicitly stated otherwise in writing by both parties involved before any such changes took place; thus making them ineligible for further reimbursement beyond what was already agreed upon initially.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Beuttas et al., trading as B-W Construction Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment against the construction company was incorrect. The dissent contended that, under federal law, taxes could only be assessed on income and not on gross receipts from contracts. They believed this interpretation was consistent with previous court rulings and Congressional intent when drafting tax legislation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that certain deductions were disallowed because they had been improperly claimed or calculated by B-W Construction Co.. Instead, they felt these deductions should have been allowed as legitimate business expenses which would reduce taxable income. Ultimately, their position was rooted in a belief in strict adherence to statutory language and precedent regarding taxation issues.