The U.S. Supreme Court case Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Company v. Anderson, 1930, revolved around a dispute over taxes on beer production during the Prohibition era in the United States. The brewery company argued that it should not be required to pay federal excise taxes on beer that was produced but never sold due to the implementation of Prohibition laws which made sale illegal. However, Collector of Internal Revenue Anderson insisted that tax was still owed as per existing legislation at the time of brewing and storage prior to Prohibition taking effect. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anderson stating that under Section 37 Statute 275 (1913), an excise tax is imposed upon all brewers for every barrel brewed regardless if it's sold or not; hence, making Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Company liable for payment despite prohibition laws preventing them from selling their product.

In the dissenting opinion for Loewers Gambrinus Brewery Company v. Anderson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on beer manufactured and sold in Puerto Rico by an American company was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court regarding taxation in U.S. territories. The dissenting justices contended that this case should have been treated similarly to cases involving Alaska and Hawaii before they became states, where taxes were not imposed on goods produced and consumed within those territories. They believed that Congress did not intend for such taxes to apply to Puerto Rico when it passed legislation governing its relationship with the United States, as evidenced by language exempting "the statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable." Therefore, they concluded that imposing a federal excise tax on beer made and sold exclusively within Puerto Rico violated both legislative intent and established precedent.