In the United States v. Jones, Receiver case of 1948, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal tax law and bankruptcy proceedings. The issue at hand was whether or not a corporation in receivership could claim deductions for net operating losses carried forward from previous years under Section 122(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. The court held that such corporations were indeed eligible to claim these deductions. This decision clarified an area of ambiguity within federal tax law and set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jones, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a receiver appointed by a federal court to recover assets from an insolvent debtor in state court contradicted established principles of federalism and comity. The dissent emphasized that under traditional rules of equity, a receiver has no greater rights than the entity or person over whose property he presides. Therefore, if the insolvent debtor could not have recovered these assets in state court due to local laws protecting certain types of property from seizure, then neither should the federally-appointed receiver be able to do so. Furthermore, allowing such recovery would essentially permit federal courts to override state law whenever they appoint receivers - something which goes against our system’s respect for states' rights and sovereignty.