In the United States v. Price case of 1959, the Supreme Court dealt with an issue related to federal income tax law. The respondent, Mrs. Aline S. Price, was a widow who had received payments from her late husband's life insurance policy and invested them in property that generated rental income. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that this rental income should be taxed as part of her gross estate under Section 811(c) of the Internal Revenue Code because it originated from proceeds she inherited directly from her deceased spouse's life insurance policy. However, Mrs.Price contended that these funds were not subject to taxation as they were used for investment purposes after being initially received free-of-tax due to provisions in Section 101(a). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Price stating that once she received the life insurance money tax-free under section 101(a), what she chose to do with it thereafter did not make it taxable again under section 811(c). Therefore, any subsequent earnings or profits made through investments using this money would also not fall within the purview of estate taxes.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Price case argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Act was too broad and could potentially criminalize normal business practices. The dissenters believed that not all price discriminations should be considered illegal, especially if they do not have a substantial effect on competition or are based on differences in cost. They also disagreed with the majority's view that it is unnecessary to prove intent to harm competition for a violation of section 2(a) of the Clayton Act as amended by Robinson-Patman Act, arguing instead that such proof should be required because it would help distinguish between lawful and unlawful conduct under this law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on small businesses which may find themselves unable to compete due to their inability to offer discounts like larger competitors can without risking legal action.