In the United States v. Larkin, Intervenor and Claimant case of 1907, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute related to property seized by federal authorities under tax laws. The government had confiscated distilled spirits from a warehouse owned by Mr. Larkin due to unpaid taxes owed by another party who had stored their goods in his facility without his knowledge or consent. Mr. Larkin claimed that he was an innocent owner and should not be penalized for someone else's tax evasion. The court held that while it sympathized with Mr.Larkin’s situation, the law did not provide protection for him as an innocent third-party owner when property is seized due to non-payment of taxes - even if he was unaware of any wrongdoing associated with his premises or its contents. This ruling affirmed the principle that ignorance does not exempt one from liability under U.S tax laws; thus reinforcing governmental authority over private property rights in cases involving taxation disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Larkin, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a seizure of property under an internal revenue law was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation of the law allowed for excessive punishment and violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments. They contended that while Congress has broad powers to enforce tax laws, these powers should not extend to authorizing punitive seizures without due process or proportionality in relation to the offense committed. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power by government officials who could use such laws as tools for harassment or persecution rather than legitimate enforcement actions.