logically consistent with the underlying principles motivating the approach. Container Corporation of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 159, 167, 103 S.Ct. 2933, 2941, 77 L.Ed.2d 545 (1983). See generally, 1 J.R. Hellerstein, STATE TAXATION: CORPORATE INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAXES ¶ 8.11[4][g] (1983) (discussing the various factors in determining the parameters of a unitary business that the Supreme Court has recognized or established). Because of shifting factual and economic circumstances in state apportionment disputes, the Supreme Court has relied on numerous factors in determining whether a foreign business activity is an integral part of a corporation’s unitary business operations or whether it constitutes a discrete corporate enterprise. For example, the Court has at 3138 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly
holding that there is no selfincrimination where one is compelled to produce the papers of a business that has no privilege holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that loss of business attributable to change in traffic flow is noncompensable holding that in pennsylvania there is a rule that proof of the ownership of a business vehicle involved in an accident raises a presumption that the operation of the automobile was for the owners business purposes