In the United States v. Corrick case of 1935, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal income tax law. The respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Corrick, had sold their stock in a corporation for promissory notes instead of cash and argued that they should not be taxed until payment was received from these notes as per Section 112(b) of Revenue Act 1928 which allowed deferment of tax liability in certain cases where property was exchanged solely for other property rights or interests. However, the government contended that this transaction constituted a sale subject to immediate taxation under general principles governing sales on credit. The Supreme Court sided with the government's interpretation stating that receiving promissory notes is equivalent to receiving cash payments at once because it represents an absolute right to receive money in future; hence taxable immediately upon receipt rather than when actual payment is made later on those notes. This decision clarified how transactions involving exchange of stocks for promissory notes are treated under U.S federal income tax laws - such transactions are considered completed sales subjecting taxpayers to immediate taxation regardless if actual payment will be received at some point in future.

In the dissenting opinion for United States et al. v. Corrick et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a tax on securities transfers was incorrect because it failed to consider Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and its authority over national economic policy. He contended that the tax did not violate constitutional principles of federalism, as it was applied uniformly across all states and did not interfere with state governments' ability to function or exercise their own powers. Furthermore, he maintained that such taxes are necessary tools for managing national economic affairs and ensuring fiscal stability, particularly during times of financial crisis like the Great Depression when this case was decided. The justice also expressed concern about potential negative consequences of limiting Congress’ taxing power in this way, including undermining its capacity to respond effectively to future economic challenges.