In the United States v. Slaymaker case of 1923, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to tax evasion and fraud. The defendant, Mr. Slaymaker, was accused of making false statements about his income in order to evade taxes. He argued that he had not committed any crime because he did not owe any taxes at the time when he made these false statements - thus there were no actual damages or losses incurred by the government due to his actions. However, this argument was rejected by the court which held that a person could be found guilty of attempting to defraud even if their attempt is unsuccessful or does not result in any actual loss for another party involved. In other words, it's still considered an offense under federal law even if no money has been lost as a result. The court also clarified that intent plays a crucial role in such cases; it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that defendant intended to commit fraud and deceive others through their actions or misrepresentations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Slaymaker was not explicitly documented, as is often the case with older Supreme Court decisions. The available information does not provide a detailed account of any opposing viewpoints or arguments presented by justices who may have disagreed with the majority ruling. Therefore, it's impossible to summarize a dissenting opinion for this specific case due to lack of recorded data and documentation on this matter from 1923.