In the United States v. Walter case of 1923, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to income tax evasion and fraud. The defendant, Mr. Walter, was accused of evading taxes by falsely reporting his income from a corporation he controlled as loans rather than actual earnings. He argued that these were genuine loans which he intended to repay and therefore should not be taxed as income. The court disagreed with Walter's argument stating that even if there was an intention to repay in future years, it did not change the fact that during those specific taxable years under review, he had full control over the funds without any obligation or intent to return them within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, for all practical purposes during those years in question - they constituted income rather than debt because they increased his wealth available for consumption or savings. This ruling established important precedent regarding how "constructive receipt" is determined for taxation purposes – i.e., when taxpayers have unrestricted access/control over funds irrespective of their formal classification (as loan/debt), such amounts can still be considered taxable income.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Walter, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping. He argued that such methods were an invasion of privacy and violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he contended that allowing this type of evidence would set a dangerous precedent where law enforcement could freely invade personal communications without any legal constraints or oversight. This, in his view, was contrary to fundamental principles of liberty and justice upon which American society is built.