In the United States v. Provident Trust Co., Administrator case in 1933, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over estate taxes. The decedent had transferred bonds to his wife during their marriage and upon her death, these were returned to him as part of her estate. After he died, the government sought to include these bonds in his gross estate for taxation purposes under Section 302(d) of the Revenue Act of 1926. The executor of his will argued that this was not applicable since they were originally owned by him before being given away as gifts. The Supreme Court ruled against Provident Trust Co., stating that even though he initially owned those assets, when they came back into his possession through inheritance from his wife's estate after she passed away (which happened within two years prior to his own death), it constituted a transfer intended or designed to revert back at or before death according to Section 302(d). Therefore, such assets should be included in calculating tax on gross estates regardless if it was previously gifted or not.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Provident Trust Co., Administrator case argued that the majority's decision to allow a tax on gifts made by non-residents was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this violated principles of international law and comity, as well as infringed upon state sovereignty rights. They contended that Congress did not have authority over such matters because they were outside its jurisdictional reach, particularly when it came to taxing property located abroad or owned by non-residents who had no connection with the U.S other than making a gift to someone residing there. Furthermore, they felt that allowing such taxation could lead to retaliatory measures from foreign countries against American citizens living abroad or owning property overseas.