Case Name: TAMKO ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC. OF MARYLAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SIDNEY GLASER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1984-02-14
Citations: 6 N.J. Tax 342
Docket Number: 
Parties: TAMKO ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC. OF MARYLAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SIDNEY GLASER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 342–344

Head Matter:
TAMKO ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC. OF MARYLAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SIDNEY GLASER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued January 23, 1984
Decided February 14, 1984.
Before Judges BISCHOFF, PETRELLA and BRODY.
Douglas G. Sanborn argued the cause for appellant (Jamie-son, McCardell, Moore, Peskin & Spicer, attorneys; Douglas G. Sanborn on the brief).
Martin L. Wheelwright, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Martin L. Wheelwright on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of dismissal entered in the tax court on July 5, 1983 is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed by Lawrence L. Lasser, J.T.C., in his opinion dated July 5, 1983 and published at 5 N.J.Tax 446 (1983).
We reject the argument that the tax is unconstitutional because it would subject appellant to double taxation if Maryland were to adopt a statute containing the language of N.J.S.A. 54:10A-6. That section of the New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Act provides an allocation formula "[i]n the case of a taxpayer which maintains a regular place of business outside this State____" Appellant contends that it would not be entitled to an offset in Maryland for its net worth allocable under that section to its New Jersey business because it does not maintain a regular place of business in New Jersey. Assuming what Maryland might do is relevant to this case, one may also speculate that Maryland might adopt a section comparable to N.J.S.A. 54:10A-8 which permits the commissioner to make additional allocations to avoid double taxation.
Affirmed.