In the case of United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 1955, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a corporation could deduct from its federal income tax returns payments made under compulsion of state law for alleged overcharges in previous years. The company had been sued by customers who claimed that they were overcharged due to price-fixing during World War II and settled these claims out-of-court. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed these deductions on the grounds that they constituted penalties rather than ordinary business expenses. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McKesson & Robbins, stating that such payments are deductible as long as they stem from a legal obligation and not imposed as punishment for fraudulent or illegal behavior. Therefore, even though these payments resulted from allegations of wrongdoing on part of the company during wartime price controls era; since it was an attempt to rectify past wrongs rather than being penalized for them - it qualified as an ordinary business expense which is deductible under federal tax laws.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an administrative subpoena was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant because it allowed for unreasonable searches and seizures without proper judicial oversight or probable cause. They contended that administrative subpoenas should not be used as a tool for criminal investigations, but rather should only be utilized within their original intent - regulatory compliance checks by government agencies. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such practices were permitted to continue unchecked by courts.