In the United States v. Field, Executor of Field case in 1920, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over estate taxes. Cyrus W. Field had left his entire estate to his children and grandchildren but died before he could pay off all of his debts. The government argued that it should be able to tax the full value of the estate as if there were no debts against it because they believed that an inheritance tax was not a direct tax on property but rather an excise or privilege tax on transmission rights after death. The executor for Mr.Field's will disagreed and sued for refund claiming that only net estates (after deduction of debt) can be taxed under federal law at time of decedent’s death. The court sided with Mr.Field's executor stating that while Congress has broad powers to levy taxes, those powers are limited by other constitutional provisions including due process clause which requires fair treatment through normal judicial system especially as legal right is concerned. Therefore, gross amount cannot be used when calculating inheritance taxes; instead net amount must be used after deducting any outstanding liabilities from deceased person’s assets.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Field, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of tax law and its application to gifts made in contemplation of death. He argued that Congress intended to tax all transfers at death, regardless of their form or timing, as a means of preventing individuals from avoiding estate taxes through strategic gifting before death. Holmes believed that this intent was clear in the language and structure of the Revenue Act itself. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on English common law principles which were not applicable due to significant differences between American and British inheritance laws. In his view, it was inappropriate for courts to use these principles when interpreting modern statutes enacted by Congress with specific policy goals in mind.