In the United States v. Mitchell et al., Executor, 1925 case, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over inheritance taxes. The plaintiff was an executor of an estate who argued that certain property should not be subject to federal taxation because it had been transferred before death. However, the government claimed that this transfer was in contemplation of death and thus taxable under federal law. The court sided with the government's interpretation of "transfers in contemplation of death", stating they are essentially substitutes for testamentary dispositions and hence liable to tax as such. This decision clarified how transfers made prior to one’s demise could still be considered part of their gross estate for tax purposes if they were done so 'in contemplation' or anticipation of impending death.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mitchell et al., Executor, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a federal estate tax could be levied on property transferred by will from one spouse to another. He argued that this interpretation of the Revenue Act of 1918 was not in line with its original intent or previous interpretations of similar laws. According to him, Congress had intended to exempt all property passed between spouses from taxation and only levy taxes on transfers made for other purposes or relationships. Furthermore, he believed that such an interpretation would lead to double taxation as both estates would be taxed when each spouse died which is against public policy principles and fairness norms in tax law.