Under the Court's analysis, the question of apportionment focuses on whether a taxing jurisdiction has sought to tax income that is reasonably related to the taxpayer's activities within the jurisdiction. As noted above, Portland employs a geographical method of apportioning income. See nn 3 and 10 above. See Moorman Mfg. As applied to defendant's income for the tax years 1992 to 1996, Portland's business license fee does not violate due process.
Defendant is correct.
Although we agree with the trial court that the city may constitutionally require defendant to pay a business license fee for the tax years 1992 to 1996, we must vacate its judgment and remand for the entry of a judgment containing a declaration consistent with this opinion. I agree with the majority's analysis and result, with one caveat. I do not question that the Due Process Clause prevents a state and its municipalities from imposing burdens or consequences on people or entities who have not had the requisite level of contact with the state, but I am less certain that it operates to limit the authority of a municipality to do that to people who have had sufficient contact with the state but not with the municipality. The parties have not raised that issue, however, so we are not required to address it in this case. Return to previous location .